Is killing acceptable?

[Graeme M]

Forum Legend Lou has said on more than one occasion that veganism only demands that we avoid exploitation of other animals. Here is an example:

"I pretty much fall back on the definition of veganism. It doesn't prohibit the killing of animals. Just their exploitation. So farming insects for food is not vegan. but there is no prohibition against killing insects (or mice) that are in your house."

I have said before that I have never in my life heard this said. Almost all definitions or explanations for veganism talk of preventing harms and death to other animals as equally important as exploitation. On this alternative view, it seems perfectly fine to hunt for sport, something no vegan I have ever met would support.

I am curious where this definition has come from and whether it means that most people who think of themselves as vegan are under a misapprehension about what veganism really means.

 

[Tom L.]

I might be wrong, or maybe there are differences among those who identify as "vegan"... but as I understand it, veganism involves not killing animals AND ALSO not exploiting them in non-lethal ways. I think veganism was originally meant to avoid harm to animals so far as possible. Back in the 1970s, Jay Dinshah (founder of the American Vegan Society) kindly sent me a few issues of their monthly newspaper in response to a request I had sent them. At the time, their philosophy seemed to be that the very concept of "owning" an animal was inherently problematic, even if (and that's a big "if") the animal was treated well. I don't think they had a problem with rescuing or adopting an animal who needed a home (especially a domestic herbivorous species). They acknowledged that feeding a carnivorous animal was problematic: do you keep an animal and not feed it the food they require, or do you sacrifice one animal to feed another?

I currently have no animal adoptees, primarily because I want to take a break from having to worry about anybody. When I did have cats, their food did contain both vegan and meat ingredients; I rationalized this because most of the meat was organs which humans would consider inedible, although wild felines would be happily devouring those tissues anyway. And when meat-eating family and friends had human-grade meat which was going to be discarded (only a few small pieces too small for even a sandwich, or the shreds of flesh left on a turkey's skeleton) I brought it home for my cats.

 

[Lou]

The Vegan Society defines veganism as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals”.

So you still can't hunt, or fish. being those things are also forms of exploitation and cruelty. I suppose its important to include that phrase on on cruelty. I am guilty of frequently leaving that out. Sorry if that confused you.

There are also many definitions of veganism. You will find different ones in the dictionary. However, I like this one because it was written and approved by a bunch of vegans (The Vegan Society). Its also pretty short.
By the way, the vegan society coined the word Vegan and wrote the definition in 1944. Although I have a vague understanding that the definition has been refined over the years.

Perhaps entering into the area of TMI, there are also many types of vegans. Each type might use a definition that is better suited for their purposes.

For instance, I'm an "Ethical Vegan". And as an ethical vegan I embrace the Vegan Society's definition.
But there are also "Dietary Vegans". Nowadays they might be called Plant-Based. Back in the day, I would call them strict vegetarians. They might use the dictionary's definition: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals. Ethical vegans can frequently be heard saying that Veganism is more than just a diet - it's a lifestyle.

There are also what are now being called Health Based Vegans or WFPB Vegans.
And there are also environmentally based vegans. Vegans who are predominately concerned with GHG production.

(BTW, I don't ever use the "ethical" qualifier. I believe its unnecessary because I think all vegans are Ethical Vegans. However, I don't like to exclude anyone who wants to call themselves vegan. And I have no issue with there being various flavors and brands of veganism. For me, Veganism is mostly about intent. Check out the definition - it doesn't say vegans exclude but it says "seeks to exclude". so you don't have to be perfect to be a vegan. You just have to want to be.

Oh and for a much better explanation please read this excellent article.

The foundations of ethical veganism | The Vegan Society

www.vegansociety.com

 

[Lou]

I just read @Tom L.'s reply.
It Just occurred to me that there might even be another kind of vegan. For now, I'll call it the PETA vegan.
Or it might also be called the Animal Rights vegan.

PETA's foundation is that "animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way. ... PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans."

"PETA does not oppose kind people who share their lives and homes with animal companions whom they love, treat well, and care for properly."

All About PETA | PETA

www.peta.org

 

[silva]

My point of view is to distinguish murder and killing. They both involve taking a life, but to kill in order to protect yourself, or another, or even you possessions from harm can be justified
To kill without reason is murder and should never be permissible in the human species.
I have used exterminators when I discovered bedbugs asap, but for most I find inside my home I leave well enough alone
I have cats that have all needed homes and I do feed animals to them, as I had felt there was not better choices. I have put certain animals above others. I put them much closer to humans since we have made them so dependent.

 

[Graeme M]

So you still can't hunt, or fish. being those things are also forms of exploitation and cruelty. I suppose its important to include that phrase on on cruelty. I am guilty of frequently leaving that out.

I can see that fishing is a cause of animal suffering (presuming that fish feel pain), but hunting may not be. In either case, I guess I don't see why it would be considered exploitation to kill another animal? In another thread you and others seemed to think killing pests in the home is acceptable as a vegan, but realistically that sort of killing is for personal comfort. Mosquitoes, spiders, mice and so on don't really pose much risk to our health in western countries.

I think you are saying that killing another animal can be done without either cruelty or exploitation in which case it is OK, though as I said it's still a perspective I've not heard vegans take before now.

I also admit I don't much understand the "exploitation" angle. Presumably, the meaning of exploitation in this contest is to use another unfairly or unjustly. So owning a cow to sell her milk is exploitation, though I am not quite sure I see why it is unfair or unjust. It seems a bit of an arbitrary claim though I suppose reams have been written about why.

But back to the point, do you mean that veganism has nothing really to say about killing at all, good reasons or not?

To kill without reason is murder and should never be permissible in the human species.

I think you'd need a better claim than that because eating an animal is a good reason to kill one.

 

[Lou]

But back to the point, do you mean that veganism has nothing really to say about killing at all, good reasons or not?

I think normally I would find your questioning annoying but you are pushing me to refine my own thinking - which IMHO is a good thing.

Of course I didn't write these definitions but I do accept them.
The Vegan Society's definition does not include the word killing. Just exploitation and cruelty. And I do think the distinction was on purpose and and is crucial.
But maybe in your questioning we need to go to the the other part of the wording, "as far as is possible and practicable". So it certainly is possible to avoid harming animals by NOT hunting of fishing. So it's less not having a good reason to harm, but the ability to choose Not To. I didn't say that very well. A lot has been written on the subject so if I spot a quote I'll add it later.
More is usually made of the flip side of "as far as is possible and practicable". We don't condone the killing of insects that eat crops. but its not always possible to avoid it.

I think you'd need a better claim than that because eating an animal is a good reason to kill one.

not unless you are starving. In the normal course of events, I can choose not to kill animals to eat. There are just plenty of other alternatives. This is the central point.
You can use almost any school of philosophy to explore the tenants of veganism. If you look at it thru the Utililtarian lens you would probably say that its a vegan's intent to minimize harm, "as far as is possible and practicable".

 

[silva]

I can see that fishing is a cause of animal suffering (presuming that fish feel pain), but hunting may not be. In either case, I guess I don't see why it would be considered exploitation to kill another animal? In another thread you and others seemed to think killing pests in the home is acceptable as a vegan, but realistically that sort of killing is for personal comfort. Mosquitoes, spiders, mice and so on don't really pose much risk to our health in western countries.

I think you are saying that killing another animal can be done without either cruelty or exploitation in which case it is OK, though as I said it's still a perspective I've not heard vegans take before now.

I also admit I don't much understand the "exploitation" angle. Presumably, the meaning of exploitation in this contest is to use another unfairly or unjustly. So owning a cow to sell her milk is exploitation, though I am not quite sure I see why it is unfair or unjust. It seems a bit of an arbitrary claim though I suppose reams have been written about why.

But back to the point, do you mean that veganism has nothing really to say about killing at all, good reasons or not?


I think you'd need a better claim than that because eating an animal is a good reason to kill one.

Killing is the action that takes a life. I do not believe veganism has anything to say about killing.
I am vegan because I don't need to kill, neither by my own hand, or the acts of others, in order to eat.
Eating animals has never been a need anywhere I've lived, or by anyone I've known.

 

[Graeme M]

I think normally I would find your questioning annoying but you are pushing me to refine my own thinking - which IMHO is a good thing.

I apologise if I have annoyed you. I just hadn't really thought of the exploitation angle as being the dominant issue before, but you are right it is in the UK VS definition. Cruelty on the other hand is not restricted to veganism, I think it's a general view of most people that we shouldn't be cruel. But what is cruel varies from person to person I guess. The cruelty concern is simply one about welfare.

In regard to killing, I suppose I'd ask you whether you think that killing is harming. Personally I don't think so, if done without pain and suffering. For example, if I shoot you through the head from behind, have you suffered? If I did it well, then no. Have I harmed you? It depends on what we mean by "you" but if by that we mean the sort of mental space that is our experience of the world, then no. Once you are dead that no longer exists. Harm in that context can only be something that happens to something that is aware and experiencing.

Of course harm can be thought of as any physical damage to a living thing, but if so (ie we don't have to be aware of harm for it to be harm) then we are caught up worrying about plants. I don't think we are thinking about that kind of harm.

So yes, straight out killing is not really a problem to the one killed. What we would worry at is causing pain and suffering or some other form of undue stress to another. Which as I noted above just boils down to worries about welfare. And I think it also means that hunting is fine if you kill the other animal instantly and perhaps it is even OK if there is some pain and suffering if we are hunting for food (for example as we talked about elsewhere, we harm many animals to grow crops but accept that harm because it is necessary to produce food).

Exploitation though. What is that? I don't know in a vegan sense. The dictionary says it is using someone unfairly, but that's a human definition in the sense it means that someone can know they have been exploited because they know that they have been used unfairly. But if you have no idea about that, what does it matter?

People don't want to be exploited because it means they haven't been justly rewarded for their efforts or their existence. But if one has no idea about such concepts then I don't think it matters. Then, what counts is welfare - how do I feel generally or more particularly about things that happen to me. A cow doesn't worry that it is being used unfairly, in terms of being farmed it just worries about how it feels. For well treated free range cows then, exploitation doesn't bother them at all so why should we worry about it? And if we could kill them quickly and with no pain, their death apparently doesn't matter. Certainly not to them, at least.

All we seem to be left with is welfare. Lou, what do you mean by exploitation in this context and why do you think it matters?

I am vegan because I do need to kill, neither by my own hand, or the acts of others, in order to eat.

Well, assuming you meant "do not need to kill" we've already found that many animals are killed for your food, so I think you have made a false statement there. But perhaps I have forgotten and you actually do grow all your own food or source food that isn't grown using everyday commercial methods.

 

[Lou]

@Graeme M,
I didn't say you were annoying, I said that normally I would find the questions to be annoying. but you are asking good questions and making me think and question myself. Always a good idea.

again you have brought up some good points. And again these things you bring up are in the realm of philosophy.

In philosophy, especially vegan philosophy we talk abut cruelty and suffering. I'm not much of a Utilitarian, but it a very easy to understand and explain philosophy, so I'm finding myself going back to it. A utilitarian would say that purpose of veganism is to cause the least suffering (possible).

One of the earliest Western philosophers who wrote about this was Bentham: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

You also bring up Animal Welfare. This is also a rich topic among animal rights activists. And it also sometimes is divisive. Vegans typically fall into the Abolitionist camp and sometimes end up on the opposite side of legal issues with proponents of animal welfare. animal welfare activists want to legislate bigger cages for chickens. animal rights activists (vegans) want to abolish the cages. This actually came to a head with a California law. We had the HSUS supporting the size of cages requirement and PETA against it.

One writer, I believe it was Michal Pollan said something like pork in some cases was ok if the pig lived a good life except for the last two minutes of his life. He was referring to specially raised pigs. In theory, that Might be right but we know that in practice that is almost never the case. Most pigs life in terrible conditions.
Same with chickens and cows. Free range cows are maybe 2% of our cow population. and IMHO, cage free eggs are a legal fiction.

You said, "Exploitation though. What is that?....But if you have no idea about that, what does it matter?"

Mr. Bentham and I respectively disagree.

Also there are some animals that have demonstrated in the laboratory that they DO understand the concept of fairness. There is that famous experiment with the monkeys and the grapes. You may not be able to read The New Yorker article ( its behind a pay wall, and I have a subscription) but if you can - check it out

How We Learn Fairness | The New Yorker

www.newyorker.com

Another point you seem to be making is that killing is not inherently unjust. I can't agree with that either. Killing a living being is stealing its life. The US Declaration of Independence, says that men have the right to " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Vegans have just extended those rights to animals too. And its not that new or weird of an idea. the first laws that extended legal protection to animals in the UK was in the 1600s. In Britain anyway, they extended rights to animals Before they extended them to some humans (slaves).

Just in case I haven't made it clear, and to directly answer the question you posed to me, I avoid exploitation of animals because I don't presuppose that I have the "right" to exploit animals.

Earthling Ed explained it this way, '"Align your actions with your values. If you believe that the life of an animal has higher value than your taste buds then reevaluate the purchases that you make. Every time you reach for a bacon sandwich, dairy ice cream, or any animal product, you’re saying that you value your taste buds over the life of the animal who suffered and died for your purchases. Is this really the choice that you want to make?⁣⁣"

 

[Graeme M]

Lou, I am not a philosopher so may not get the nuances of various philosophical positions, but I don't think utilitarianism helps us as much as one might think in this regard. I have seen it argued that on utilitarian grounds, it may be better to breed animals for food and give them relatively good lives because the net happiness of the world is thereby increased. Similarly, crop farming may also be good because it brings into life many animals that might not otherwise and they are killed quickly from harvesting rather than suffering through life as most wild animals do.

Still, the idea we want to minimise unhappiness and maximise happiness seems reasonable and that leads us to doing least harm. Boiled down, though, causing least suffering really is just welfarism isn't it? I suspect that is why many animal rights advocates don't support that idea (Francione springs to mind). I disagree with his stance because in real terms I think welfare and abolitionism are not incompatible, though I get Francione's argument.

I think Pollan is more or less right in that IF we are going to farm animals then it follows that giving them a good life is desirable. Best welfare (doing least harm) is compatible with that and gives us much room to manoeuvre. And on such grounds we wouldn't think it right to do about 98% of what we now do to farm animals.

In regard to exploitation, I don't see why that article would have a bearing on things? Having some basic idea of fairness, or exhibiting some degree of altruism, doesn't translate to understanding injustice or exploitation. That requires language-based thought and the capacity to form sophisticated abstract concepts. I think I am on pretty safe ground to claim a cow has no idea it is being exploited. Nor does it know it is imprisoned or that it is enslaved or that it has been raped or any other such claims about farming.

I still thinks it comes back to defining what exploitation really is. We know what it is for people because we can agree when it is happening. But an animal can't discuss the matter so we are left having to make some kind of adjudication. Is it really exploitation to use an animal if in return we give it a reasonably OK life and relatively quick death? And even if it IS exploitation from our perspective, it still seems odd to worry about it when the animal cannot. What is it about exploitation of an animal that is immoral?

Another point you seem to be making is that killing is not inherently unjust. I can't agree with that either. Killing a living being is stealing its life. The US Declaration of Independence, says that men have the right to " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Vegans have just extended those rights to animals too.

Now you have confused me. I agree that rights can include the idea that one should not be able to end the life of another without just cause. But you earlier made the point that veganism is not about killing but rather exploitation and cruelty. If veganism says nothing about killing then what are we saying about vegans extending rights to include animals? Those seem quite separate issues. Does the UK Vegan Society really say that veganism requires extrending the right to life to other animals?

As far as I can tell, the only particular thing veganism is saying is that we shouldn't exploit other animals (because the cruelty concern is not specifically a vegan concern), but I confess to not immediately seeing the wrong in using other animals, if we ensure a reasonable degree of welfare (ie we are not cruel).

Note I am not trying to make a case for or against veganism, more just trying to get clear what the philosophy is asking and as this is the Philosophy part of the forum it seems to be the place to ask these questions.

 

[Lou]

Lou, I am not a philosopher so may not get the nuances of various philosophical positions, but I don't think utilitarianism helps us as much as one might think in this regard. I have seen it argued that on utilitarian grounds, it may be better to breed animals for food and give them relatively good lives because the net happiness of the world is thereby increased. Similarly, crop farming may also be good because it brings into life many animals that might not otherwise and they are killed quickly from harvesting rather than suffering through life as most wild animals do.

I'm not much of a philosopher either. I've forgotten more stuff than I know now.
I've seen that argument about animals, too. It only works on a theoretical basis. And on the theoretical basis I agree with it. but it isn't practical - and therefore isn't relevant.

The crop farming thing may be based on fallacy. People assume that mechanical agriculture kills small animals. but in several studies there is evidence that it doesn't. (in one study they radio tagged mice). Even common sense and a few minutes thought reveals this. Mice can hear the machines coming and figure out which way to run. Even slow moving animals like snakes should be able to get out of the way.

in the study with mice it became kind of moot. All the mice were gone the next day anyway. the loss of cover make them easy prey for birds. But it wasn't the harvesters that killed them. and one could say we made some hawks and owls happy.

Still, the idea we want to minimise unhappiness and maximise happiness seems reasonable and that leads us to doing least harm. Boiled down, though, causing least suffering really is just welfarism isn't it? ... I think welfare and abolitionism are not incompatible....

yes. and the branch of animal rights called abolitionist is just a different version of animal welfare. They disagree on a lot of stuff but they share the same basic beliefs.
And to put it another way. Why argue about the size of the cages when we can actually do away with the cages.

I think Pollan is more or less right in that IF we are going to farm animals then it follows that giving them a good life is desirable. Best welfare (doing least harm) is compatible with that and gives us much room to manoeuvre. And on such grounds we wouldn't think it right to do about 98% of what we now do to farm animals.

Yes. I know some vegans who dislike Pollan. but I kind of like him. I have read a bunch of his books and watched some of the documentaries. There was one where he went to a special pig barbecue. the pigs lived outdoors in large pens with each other. They seemed rather content. Right up to the minute someone came and killed them. In one of his books he went boar hunting. He had mixed feelings on that.

I can't remember who said it but ... if you had to feed and clean up after your own chicken and then kill it, pluck it and clean it your self - well there world would have a lot more vegans.

In regard to exploitation, I don't see why that article would have a bearing on things?

The point is that at least monkeys (and by extension - maybe other animals?) do have an inherent understanding of fairness ( which is as you said, a sophisticated abstract idea).

we have seen in nature many examples of animals exhibiting behavior that we consider to be advanced. Maybe its all anthropomorphization. But maybe its not. One of the experts on animal intelligence admitted that we are just not smart enough to evaluate animal intelligence.

Having some basic idea of fairness, or exhibiting some degree of altruism, doesn't translate to understanding injustice or exploitation. That requires language-based thought and the capacity to form sophisticated abstract concepts. I think I am on pretty safe ground to claim a cow has no idea it is being exploited. Nor does it know it is imprisoned or that it is enslaved or that it has been raped or any other such claims about farming.

Well I'm not going to concede that point to you. However does it make that much a diffence. Maybe the main thing is that - we know. Ghandi said, “The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member..." and :the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

I know there is a similar sentiment from an early Greek philosopher, but I couldn't remember who or what. So of course I just googled it. Still couldn't find it but I did find that our discussion has some parallels with Plato.
And I found this article. I haven't read it yet but its seems to be just a better written discussion of what we have been talking about.

Socrates Exchange: Should animals have rights? | New Hampshire Public Radio

www.nhpr.org

I still thinks it comes back to defining what exploitation really is. We know what it is for people because we can agree when it is happening. But an animal can't discuss the matter so we are left having to make some kind of adjudication. Is it really exploitation to use an animal if in return we give it a reasonably OK life and relatively quick death? And even if it IS exploitation from our perspective, it still seems odd to worry about it when the animal cannot. What is it about exploitation of an animal that is immoral?

Again I well fall back on Jeremy Betham.
Also I think it depends on what kind of philosophy you do subscribe to.
but IMHO its that people don't have the right to exploit animals.

Now you have confused me. I agree that rights can include the idea that one should not be able to end the life of another without just cause. But you earlier made the point that veganism is not about killing but rather exploitation and cruelty. If veganism says nothing about killing then what are we saying about vegans extending rights to include animals? Those seem quite separate issues. Does the UK Vegan Society really say that veganism requires extrending the right to life to other animals?

It is a different but similar issue. I don't think the UK Vegan society goes that far. they seem to limit their discussion to exploitation and cruelty. I suppose I could argue that "harvesting" an animal is the ultimate in exploitation and cruelty.

As far as I can tell, the only particular thing veganism is saying is that we shouldn't exploit other animals (because the cruelty concern is not specifically a vegan concern), but I confess to not immediately seeing the wrong in using other animals, if we ensure a reasonable degree of welfare (ie we are not cruel).

Yes. in fact PETA uses that reasoning in allowing for companion animals.

Note I am not trying to make a case for or against veganism, more just trying to get clear what the philosophy is asking and as this is the Philosophy part of the forum it seems to be the place to ask these questions.

Yes. I understand that. And I applaud the sentiment. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” ... - Socrates.
I wish my philosophy wasn't so rusty. I am probably forgetting some really important points.
I also wish I had a good book recommendation for you. I'll do a little research later. Maybe something by Singer. Or Plato.

 

[Graeme M]

The crop farming thing may be based on fallacy. People assume that mechanical agriculture kills small animals. but in several studies there is evidence that it doesn't. (in one study they radio tagged mice). Even common sense and a few minutes thought reveals this. Mice can hear the machines coming and figure out which way to run. Even slow moving animals like snakes should be able to get out of the way.

I think this is true, I doubt harvesting kills a great many small animals such as mice and rabbits. It may be worse for lizards, frogs and the like, and perhaps worst of all for insects such as beetles, wasps, ground bugs and so on. I don't think that harvesting is that much of an issue - it is pest animal control that is the real concern because so many animals are killed by this.

And to put it another way. Why argue about the size of the cages when we can actually do away with the cages.

Well, I think this is a somewhat misleading argument. If the options are do away with all cages at once or keep all cages at their existing sizes forever then of course worrying about cage size is somewhat moot. However in the world we have, no-one is doing away with cages any time soon, so advocating for better systems without cages is worthwhile, but so too is larger cages while they remain in use.

I can't remember who said it but ... if you had to feed and clean up after your own chicken and then kill it, pluck it and clean it your self - well there world would have a lot more vegans.

The important words here are "had to". If we really had to hunt/kill/prepare our own food using animals, we would all happily do so. Pretty much as people have always done. It's only when you have a genuine alternative AND you have been encouraged to think it's cruel to kill other animals. People are not THAT altruistic and benevolent.

Well I'm not going to concede that point to you. However does it make that much a diffence. Maybe the main thing is that - we know. Ghandi said, “The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member..." and :the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

I know there is a similar sentiment from an early Greek philosopher, but I couldn't remember who or what. So of course I just googled it. Still couldn't find it but I did find that our discussion has some parallels with Plato.
And I found this article. I haven't read it yet but its seems to be just a better written discussion of what we have been talking about.

I suppose as I look at it, these are just ambit claims. We could provide arguments for any particular take on all of this. My view is rights do not exist until human beings define them. As it is us who define rights we get to choose who enjoys them. There are philosophical analyses that provide reasons for extending rights to other beings but in the end I suppose we depend on what people will generally agree to. Unfortunately as I said the animals cannot represent themselves. Still the debate about animal's having rights does seem to be progressing which has to be a fine thing.

Right now, though, the vast majority of people do think we have the right to kill other animals for good reasons. Until such time as society agrees that this is wrong, it isn't a strong claim to say people don't have the right. On balance for now, people do have the right.

Pythagoras was the Greek you were thinking about.

Regarding exploitation, I get the argument but I suppose I am not much convinced by it. Like rights, it just is up to us whether it worries us if we use other animals. I can definitely see that farming animals in high welfare ways could be seen as just IF we need to farm them. They DO get something in exchange for their role in the system.

The fairness thing is interesting though. I can see that it IS possible some animals may be aware that their situation is unfair. For example, caged animals or cattle in fenced paddocks may look at other animals outside the enclosure and feel there is something not right. But I very much doubt they put together in their heads some sort of broader view about what is really going on and come to the conclusion that the system is unjust. Honestly, I can't agree that every use of another animal is actually exploitation, and even in those cases where it is I don't know that it matters that much if the other animal isn't aware of the fact.

I kinda feel that really, all that matters is welfare. And it does seem that is what veganism boils down, at least as an ethical philosophy.

 

[Lou]

Well, I think this is a somewhat misleading argument. If the options are do away with all cages at once or keep all cages at their existing sizes forever then of course worrying about cage size is somewhat moot. However in the world we have, no-one is doing away with cages any time soon, so advocating for better systems without cages is worthwhile, but so too is larger cages while they remain in use.

You have restated the HSUS argument perfectly.
yes we are not going vegan overnight so we should mitigate the concerns when and where we can.

The Abolitionist argument is... well in this case I'll use an analogy. Legislating cage sizes is like requiring slave owners to provide work gloves.
A lot of abolitionists won't disscuss animal welfare legislature. it is considered a distraction.
Personally, I'm in the imperfect solutions for an imperfect world camp.

The important words here are "had to". If we really had to hunt/kill/prepare our own food using animals, we would all happily do so. Pretty much as people have always done. It's only when you have a genuine alternative AND you have been encouraged to think it's cruel to kill other animals. People are not THAT altruistic and benevolent.

Um... I think you are confusing what was meant by "had to". and now I'm confused too.

I suppose as I look at it, these are just ambit claims. We could provide arguments for any particular take on all of this. My view is rights do not exist until human beings define them.

Yes, there are philosophies that are based on that. there are also philosophies (most of them are religious) that don't require people to make distinctions.

As it is us who define rights we get to choose who enjoys them.

Yes and we can choose to extend them to animals. Or not to. How a society/individual chooses to extend their rights tells us a lot about who and what we are. Early Greek philopshers knew this. so did the Abolitionists of the 17th century. And Grandi make this an important point to.
What kind of people should inspire out ethics?

There are philosophical analyses that provide reasons for extending rights to other beings but in the end I suppose we depend on what people will generally agree to.

morals vs ethics? I always get these confused. but I'm pretty sure morality takes precedence.

Unfortunately as I said the animals cannot represent themselves. Still the debate about animal's having rights does seem to be progressing which has to be a fine thing.

I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees for the trees have no tongues.
I'm totally for debating animal rights but unfortunately, I think all the progress made recently has been made without people considering animal rights. More on the health and environmental side. I think Impossible Meats and Beyond's mission is to save the planet - not animals. Although I recently read an interview of the CEO of Beyond and his motivation is to save animals.

Right now, though, the vast majority of people do think we have the right to kill other animals for good reasons. Until such time as society agrees that this is wrong, it isn't a strong claim to say people don't have the right. On balance for now, people do have the right.

Again, ethics vs morality. Also some legislating thrown in. Legally and ethically they may think they have the right. but vegans Know it's morally wrong.
Another vegan on another forum put it this way and it has stuck with me for years.
You are in the Middle Ages, walking to work and a mob is running to the town square to stone a woman for being a witch. which way do you go?

Pythagoras was the Greek you were thinking about.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't him. And I'm too lazy to look it up. but I'd put money on Aristotle.

Regarding exploitation, I get the argument but I suppose I am not much convinced by it. Like rights, it just is up to us whether it worries us if we use other animals. I can definitely see that farming animals in high welfare ways could be seen as just IF we need to farm them. They DO get something in exchange for their role in the system.

Like pets. Pets that you eat when you through with them?

The fairness thing is interesting though. ... I don't know that it matters that much if the other animal isn't aware of the fact.

Yeah. now I'm sorry I brought that up. I guess I don't believe it matters what their opinion on the situation is... it is my opinion is what matters. But it is interesting. And maybe a talking point.

I kinda feel that really, all that matters is welfare. And it does seem that is what veganism boils down, at least as an ethical philosophy.

I like this quote.
“Veganism isn’t a goal to attain. It’s the means by which we can attain our goals. Compassion is the goal. Veganism is a way to get there.” ~Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

 

[Sax]

Imagine a wealthy person who owned property with a thousand year old redwood tree on it. One night he has the redwood cut down so he can have a big bonfire, which he really enjoys. I'd argue that was wrong to do. The tree didn't suffer, the tree didn't have rights, the tree didn't have companions that would miss it, somehow it wasn't even habitat for wild animals. But something rare and irreplaceable was destroyed for a fleeting, minor pleasure.

I think sentience is inherently valuable, the most interesting and important thing in the universe. It's just incredible that information and matter can somehow interact in a way that brings conscious minds into the world. A universe where nothing could experience pleasure, perceive beauty or even be aware of its own existence would be missing something vital. It might as well not even exist.

Every sentient animal is a unique individual, the only one that will ever exist, and the fact that they're able to perceive this world and experience pleasure and interact with other minds adds something special and important to the universe.

Each individual is more rare and irreplaceable than a thousand year old redwood. And to destroy it for a fleeting moment of pleasure is wasteful and selfish and diminishes the world.

 

[Tom L.]

About mice in the house:

I forgot to mention in my post above - over the past year, I had a few mice in my house. I think they got in through a screen door I left open (but locked) one hot summer night. I've evicted them all; I know they originally came from outside, so that's where they returned. I had caught one (with a live trap) very early this year; it was quite cold outside, so I decided to keep her. She died about a month ago, but she seemed happy enough while I had her.

Anyway- mice aren't sanitary to have in your home, and theoretically, their habit of gnawing things could cause a fire if they damaged electrical appliance cords. I checked my house and everything appears to be intact. So perhaps a case could be made for lethal force, but it's a stretch.

EDITED TO ADD: about being killed painlessly not the same as "being harmed"... My view is that living itself is a desirable for sentient beings because they enjoy life. I'm not necessarily arguing that animals fear death as such; I've seen no evidence that animals intellectually grasp the concepts of "being" (life) and "not being" (death). But from my observation, animals enjoy their lives and would almost always choose to live if they could make such a choice. Killing them is thus harming them- just as it would harm me to rob me of a million dollars that I didn't know I was going to get.

 

[Tom L.]

I forgot to comment on the issue of animals being killed by heavy machinery in fields where vegan crops are grown.

This issue does matter IMHO. However- it does not necessarily follow that the inevitable death of animals during farming operations is more or less ethically equivalent to raising and killing them for food. Consider: human fatalities occur every day from auto accidents. Yes, we have speed limits and other safety measures- and they do save lives. But people still die.

I'd have to look it up, but I vaguely remember that highway speed limits were reduced for a time- I think it was in the United States. Sure enough, the rate of accidents went down. But eventually the speed limits were raised again. Even if I'm remembering this wrong, surely it's reasonable to assume that a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit would HUGELY reduce auto accidents. I'm thinking very few people would ever want such a scheme (at least not at first. Who knows? Maybe a slower pace of living would come to be popular!)

But for now, people evidently accept the risk from motor vehicle accidents- but not murder. Those who compare (or almost equate) the deaths of animals from large-scale agriculture with hunting or raising animals for meat almost seem to be arguing that vegans give animals MORE consideration than is commonly given human beings.

Now, since one definition of vegan includes the qualifier "as far as is possible and practicable"... perhaps one could argue that wasting food is not vegan.

 

[KLS52]

To my recollection the speed limits were reduced to 55. I thought, initially, it was to save on gas and less accidents were an added bonus. But my memory is not great so I can be off the mark as well.

 

[KLS52]

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0074.htm

“In 1974, a National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL), designed chiefly to conserve fuel, took effect, establishing a national maximum speed limit of 55 mph.

Congress relaxed the law in 1987, allowing states to set speed limits of up to 65 mph on interstate roads in areas with fewer than 50,000 people ("rural interstates").

In 1995, Congress repealed the NMSL, allowing states to set their own speed limits (or none at all) on their roads. Most states have since increased the speed limits on some or all of their roads”.

 

[Lou]

Yeah, the law was passed to save gas during the fuel shortage of 74.
It was an unpopular law and they should have spent a lot more money on PR. Another example of Americans being stupid.

it did save gas. But not that much and not as much as expected. the main issue is that most drivers just completely disregarded the lower speed limit. It did create a lot of revenue from speeding tickets

National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it also saved lives
but maybe not that many. Maybe a couple of thousand a year. although that does add up, it doesn't really move the needle. Again maybe the non-compliance of drivers was at fault.

​

Long-Term Effects of Repealing the National Maximum Speed Limit in the United States - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You can check out this article for a deep dive. its actually pretty interesting.

Groovy History

groovyhistory.com