UK Pesticides and Combine Harvesters.

JacobVeganism

Forum Novice
Joined
May 7, 2020
Reaction score
11
Age
20
Location
England
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
  2. Vegan newbie
I feel like I am obligated to research extensively which crops cause the least suffering as to be consistent with my morals. The same way I expect a meat eater to extend their morals from humans to animals, I should extend my morals from intensive farming to accidental suffering in crop production, and find the minimum suffering required for survival. Thoughts?
 
I feel like I am obligated to research extensively which crops cause the least suffering as to be consistent with my morals. The same way I expect a meat eater to extend their morals from humans to animals, I should extend my morals from intensive farming to accidental suffering in crop production, and find the minimum suffering required for survival. Thoughts?


Yes and no.

You should attempt to cause the least amount of suffering. But I don't believe you have that much of a moral obligation to avoid causing accidental or incidental suffering. That is why they are called accidental and incidental. As usual, I fall back on the accepted definition of vegan, "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable...." Please notice that it uses the words "possible and practicable". It does not use the phrase "at all costs".

In the justice system you are not legally responsible for accidental deaths unless there was some reasonable way you could have prevented it. If you run someone over when your brakes fail and your car not been properly maintained and you were warned, then you are criminally negligent. but if you run someone over because your brakes fail because the mechanic put them in wrong you are not liable.

Now we can buy produce that was farmed without pesticides. It's actually pretty easy to do. Those foods are called "organic" and in the USA and the UK that label is controlled by government agencies that provide both requirements and inspections. I'm not sure vegans are "obligated" to buy organic. But you certainly can choose to. it is certainly possible and practicable.

As far as intensive farming practices go, trying to avoid crops that have been farmed intensively is difficult - maybe even impractical. Small farms that don't intensively farm usually concentrate on expensive crops that need to be handpicked. Like strawberries. and there are other crops that can be found at "fruit stands" and farmer markets. Lettuce, string beans, corn. But I don't think you can live off just those things. I doubt you will find oats, wheat, or soybeans in a farmer's market.

I don't think vegans have a moral imperative to shop at farmer's markets but I like the concept both for environmental reasons and social justice issues. So I buy a lot of my produce at a farmer's market. It certainly falls into my idea of possible and practicable.

Concerning yourself too much about accidental or incidental deaths, well to paraphrase, that way madness lies. you go down that road and you have to start watching where you walk so you don't step on any ants. Also unless you want to live in the woods with just a garden you are constantly surrounded by incidental deaths of animals. The grocer you visit uses insecticides to keep fruit flys and pantry moths from becoming problems. your landlord and your grocer will poison rats, mice, and cockroaches. These things are pretty much unavoidable as long as you choose to live in the modern world. And I don't believe you are morally obligated to move into a cabin.

I might also bring up that the number of animals that die during harvesting operations is probably much smaller than you might think. There have been sevearl studies on this. At least one in England. Oh here (thank you google), is a blog that describes the research in an easy to read way.

 
Yes and no.

You should attempt to cause the least amount of suffering. But I don't believe you have that much of a moral obligation to avoid causing accidental or incidental suffering. That is why they are called accidental and incidental. As usual, I fall back on the accepted definition of vegan, "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable...." Please notice that it uses the words "possible and practicable". It does not use the phrase "at all costs".

In the justice system you are not legally responsible for accidental deaths unless there was some reasonable way you could have prevented it. If you run someone over when your brakes fail and your car not been properly maintained and you were warned, then you are criminally negligent. but if you run someone over because your brakes fail because the mechanic put them in wrong you are not liable.

Now we can buy produce that was farmed without pesticides. It's actually pretty easy to do. Those foods are called "organic" and in the USA and the UK that label is controlled by government agencies that provide both requirements and inspections. I'm not sure vegans are "obligated" to buy organic. But you certainly can choose to. it is certainly possible and practicable.

As far as intensive farming practices go, trying to avoid crops that have been farmed intensively is difficult - maybe even impractical. Small farms that don't intensively farm usually concentrate on expensive crops that need to be handpicked. Like strawberries. and there are other crops that can be found at "fruit stands" and farmer markets. Lettuce, string beans, corn. But I don't think you can live off just those things. I doubt you will find oats, wheat, or soybeans in a farmer's market.

I don't think vegans have a moral imperative to shop at farmer's markets but I like the concept both for environmental reasons and social justice issues. So I buy a lot of my produce at a farmer's market. It certainly falls into my idea of possible and practicable.

Concerning yourself too much about accidental or incidental deaths, well to paraphrase, that way madness lies. you go down that road and you have to start watching where you walk so you don't step on any ants. Also unless you want to live in the woods with just a garden you are constantly surrounded by incidental deaths of animals. The grocer you visit uses insecticides to keep fruit flys and pantry moths from becoming problems. your landlord and your grocer will poison rats, mice, and cockroaches. These things are pretty much unavoidable as long as you choose to live in the modern world. And I don't believe you are morally obligated to move into a cabin.

I might also bring up that the number of animals that die during harvesting operations is probably much smaller than you might think. There have been sevearl studies on this. At least one in England. Oh here (thank you google), is a blog that describes the research in an easy to read way.

I think I'll mark this down as the answer. Very thorough and in-depth. Personally, I believe that it should either not be considered at all, or it should be an obligation. It is either wrong or it is not. If it is wrong, then it is an obligation to avoid doing it. If it is not wrong, then it is indifferent, so why would one choose it? I'm just not sure whether it is wrong to support an industry in which you know harm will be caused. I see it this way: in spreading the message of veganism, it is more likely that more ethical methods will be universally introduced. However, my dad says that I can't tell him that it is an obligation not to consume dairy if I am consuming bread and it's hard to argue with him. He claims that being vegan isn't the best I can do, which invalidates my argument. If I draw my line at bread, who's to say he's wrong to draw his line at dairy? I try to tell him that it is different as it is not REQUIRED, but he takes a strictly consequentialist view.

Edit: Just want to reemphasize how exceptional of a reply this is. Thanks! This is the kind of thing I want from a forum, constructive information rather than marginalisation.
 
One of my favorite sayings is: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
In other words, just because you can't be perfect you shouldn't try to be good.
the amount of bad that diary produces is MUCH greater than the amount of bad produced by grains.
 
One of my favorite sayings is: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
In other words, just because you can't be perfect you shouldn't try to be good.
the amount of bad that diary produces is MUCH greater than the amount of bad produced by grains.
I agree with the sentiment, but couldn't someone use this phrase to justify consuming dairy? I know it's much worse, but it's not as bad as murdering one another, so so long as I am being good in not killing my family, I can consume dairy. Maybe what you're saying is that if more harm was caused by crops, it would be unjust, but currently it is just?
 
I agree with the sentiment, but couldn't someone use this phrase to justify consuming dairy? I know it's much worse, but it's not as bad as murdering one another, so so long as I am being good in not killing my family, I can consume dairy. Maybe what you're saying is that if more harm was caused by crops, it would be unjust, but currently it is just?

I don't think so.

dairy is unavoidably and not accidentally or incidentally bad for cows. Plus dairy is not necessay or essentail for humans.

If grains are bad for animals it is accidental and incidental and not easily avoidable. Grains are good for you and hard(er) to replace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacobVeganism
I don't think so.

dairy is unavoidably and not accidentally or incidentally bad for cows. Plus dairy is not necessay or essentail for humans.

If grains are bad for animals it is accidental and incidental and not easily avoidable. Grains are good for you and hard(er) to replace.
You are not morally culpable for accidentally running over a squirrel, but you are if you choose to seek the squirrel. However, if you drink drive you are somewhat responsible for the accident that proceeds it, as recklessness causes accountability. I believe that this analogy could be applied to crop production, however methods are not necessarily "reckless", it is just that other methods could be introduced. I definitely agree that dairy is easier to replace, but if we use this argument it trivialises our position as it makes it a matter of convenience, this is why I'm sticking to accidental accountability (incidental acts).

I'm going to advance this: if I were to pay someone to deliver a certain product to me, and in that they risk running over a squirrel, it is not immoral for me to continue to pay them to do so. However, if I were to pay someone to perform taxidermy on a squirrel once a year it would be immoral, even though both hypothetical situations would likely have the same outcome (likely being the key word, he might never run over a squirrel).
 
I don't think so.

dairy is unavoidably and not accidentally or incidentally bad for cows. Plus dairy is not necessay or essentail for humans.

If grains are bad for animals it is accidental and incidental and not easily avoidable. Grains are good for you and hard(er) to replace.
I also want to add that I wouldn't boycott wheat to prevent the accidental and incidental suffering of human beings of the same characteristics. This is important, and a crucial difference between dairy and wheat, as I could not say this for the dairy industry.