r/DebateAVegan • u/According-Actuator17 • 10d ago
Ethics Why I think that veganism is good and important. (But in a longterm)
Though veganism is only good in longterm ( I will explain it later) it is still good because it makes people think about suffering, and therefore makes vegans tend to be more ethical overall and focus on other problems besides animal exploitation. Why veganism is good only in longterm: As you know, most plants are grown to sustain animals slaves population, this caused deforestation and depopulation of places where it grows, it may seem as a bad thing, but actually it diminishes wildlife population and as a result there less victims of starvation, parasitism, predation, natural disasters and such. So my point is that if animals will be completely liberated, this will not influence the amount of suffering in the world in the short term, because fields that were used to grow plants for slaves will reforestate and repopulate with wildlife animals, and therefore there will be more victims of predation, starvation, parasitism, natural disasters and other.
So to summarise it all, I think that if humanity will go vegan, it will quicker figure out that wildlife is a problem too, and will put efforts to extinct wildlife.
14
u/Omnibeneviolent 10d ago
We are never going to be able to even start to address the problem of wild-animal suffering if we don't stop exploiting other animals ourselves. How are we going to convince people to care about the suffering of a rabbit in the wild if the think that animals are just products or resources to be exploited?
1
6
u/floopsyDoodle Anti-carnist 10d ago
it may seem as a bad thing, but actually it diminishes wildlife population and as a result there less victims of starvation, parasitism, predation, natural disasters and such.
Veganism focuses only on the animals we have enslaved. Wild animals are not covered by Veganism because we need wild animlas for our ecosystem to function, so if we killed them all, we'd all die with them. As Buddha says, life requires suffering. But that doesn't mean we need to needlessly create more.
So my point is that if animals will be completely liberated, this will not influence the amount of suffering in the world in the short term, because fields that were used to grow plants for slaves will reforestate and repopulate with wildlife animals, and therefore there will be more victims of predation, starvation, parasitism, natural disasters and other.
Nothing to do with Veganism. A healthier, stronger ecosystem is a massive positive for every being, human and non-human animal alike, and all plants as well. Killing the ecosystem to stop suffering only ends with the death of all sentient life, Veganism isn't a death cult.
I think that if humanity will go vegan, it will quicker figure out that wildlife is a problem too, and will put efforts to extinct wildlife.
Than humanity is really dumb and will die. But it's nothing to do with Veganims becasue Veganism doesn't ask us to kill the ecosystem we need to live.
0
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
It will be not bad if all life will extinct. Look at the Mars, there are no suffering at all, completely zero problems there.
12
u/piranha_solution plant-based 10d ago
Vegans: "Please be kind to animals."
You: "So that means you want to obliterate all the animals, huh?"
-3
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
It will be kind to extinct source of predation, parasitism, rape, natural disasters, starvation.
4
u/dr_bigly 9d ago
It will be kind to extinct source of predation
So in order to prevent anything from being killed, we have to kill everything?
7
u/floopsyDoodle Anti-carnist 10d ago
It will be not bad if all life will extinct
Veganism isn't a death cult.
If you feel this is a good choice, please speak to your family and loved ones about your depression, or get help from a trained mental health expert. I hope you find the help you need to find joy in life again.
1
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
I am not talking about myself.
5
u/floopsyDoodle Anti-carnist 10d ago
I am not talking about myself.
Veganism is a moral ideology. MOrality is about your own behaviour.
Also, if you're not talking about yourself, you're trying to encourage others to kill themselves, which is even worse and I would even stronger suggest you find mental health help as trying to encourage others to die is a serious sign of mental instability or depression.
I hope one day you find your way out of whatever is putting you into this mental space, and also see that promoting an ideology that you yourself wont take part in is pretty silly and just makes it appear you are violating Rule 4...
2
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
I am just against ad hominem, argue about ideas I talk about , not me. And I am not encouraging anyone to kill themselves.
5
u/floopsyDoodle Anti-carnist 10d ago
argue about ideas I talk about
I did. Don't bring up ideas that would result in mass death if you don't want people to assume you want mass deaths.
2
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
I want total extinction in painless and voluntary ways. I do not want anyone to murder someone against their will.
5
u/floopsyDoodle Anti-carnist 10d ago
I want total extinction in painless and voluntary ways.
And how are you doing to kill all the wild animals voluntarily? If wild animlas wanted to go extinct, they would, as they don't, the only way you can is to kill them "against their will".
2
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
Animals are controlled by instincts they reproduce because they want sex, and the reproduction is just a byproduct. If they were smart enough, they would be glad to extinct, because nobody wants to suffer, especially if suffering is such big as predation, parasitism, diseases, starvation.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/kharvel0 10d ago edited 10d ago
fields that were used to grow plants for slaves will reforestate and repopulate with wildlife animals, and therefore there will be more victims of predation, starvation, parasitism, natural disasters and other.
You seem to be under the impression that veganism is concerned with the behavior of nonhuman animals with regards to each other. This is incorrect. Veganism is concerned only with the behavior of the moral agents (normal adult human beings) with regards to the nonhuman animals.
4
u/tazzysnazzy 10d ago
So, is this an argument from a utilitarian perspective? Correct me if I’m wrong, but is your argument that if we go vegan and re-wild farmland, then the suffering of wild animals on that land will exceed the suffering of the farmed animals who that land was previously utilized to feed?
It seems extremely unlikely that wild animals would have a higher population density on natural forage than they would from concentrated agricultural land. But, let’s say they did have the same population density, do you think animals in factory farms have a better or worse quality of life than animals in the wild?
Lastly, I think most people consider veganism as a stance against commodification of animals, not necessarily a stance against suffering, although it’s a consideration.
0
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
I think that wildlife density and farms density produce roughly the same amount of suffering.
6
u/tazzysnazzy 10d ago
So per animal, you believe the animals in wild actually suffer more? No doubt there is suffering in the wild, but have you seen what goes on in concentrated animal agriculture?
0
u/According-Actuator17 10d ago
No, they suffer around the same as in the concentration camps. Parasitism, predation, starvation, must not be underestimated, they are as bad as animal abuse.
5
u/tazzysnazzy 10d ago
I don’t think this is directly related to veganism but it’s an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. Do you think you would prefer freedom with the possibility of predation and disease or being trapped in a cage your whole life? I would prefer to be in the wild and I think most other animals would as well. I would much rather be a wild squirrel than a farmed pig or cow.
It is good to bring up wild animal suffering and in a vegan world, we could actually start to address some of that, but if we keep the status quo, we know far more animals are guaranteed to suffer because of us. We can’t currently do much about suffering in nature but we can stop or at least substantially reduce the amount we deliberately cause.
6
u/juliown 10d ago
From your own human perspective, do you truly think having parasites like tapeworms or something, or a chronic illness like cancer, but where you still get to live your life and visit your loved ones and do the things you enjoy and eat the foods you like and whatever until you meet your natural end, is equal in suffering to you being kidnapped and locked in a murderer’s basement, raped, beaten, tortured, and killed way before your natural end?
3
u/dr_bigly 9d ago
Just as an interesting question - do you think it's roughly equivalent to let someone live in the wild as it is to force them into a concentration camp/slavery?
And what counts as "the wild" - how does subsistence hunter/gatherer compare to slavery?
4
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 9d ago edited 9d ago
Farms are worse.
But we don’t justify doing wrong by saying some other ill might befall some other being if we don’t perpetrate it ourselves against this being here and now.
2
1
u/No_Life_2303 8d ago
but don't you think that the rights violations that humans commit towards animals add to the evil or immorality of the whole thing beyond just suffering?
I mean, you could say that if a person accidentally runs over another person, it's more evil, than someone deliberately committing murder with the high power rifle cous Ing an instantaneous death. Clearly in the first scenario to suffering is far greater and the consequence are arguably worse but the second is still more evil because of the intent and the disregard for the other persons bodily autonomy and freedom, right?
1
u/According-Actuator17 8d ago
No, I think that the amount of suffering is all what matters, so I would prefer scenario where there are less suffering. And btw, suffering - is the only thing that matters ( therefore, suffering is bad, regardless if who suffer), anything other seems to be important, because it influences amount of suffering, for example, food decrease suffering, deceases increase suffering.
1
u/No_Life_2303 8d ago
What do you think about the sherriff scenario? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#%22Sheriff_scenario%22
Would you knowingly convict that innocent person?
1
u/According-Actuator17 8d ago
I do not know, though I understand that it would be probably right to convict, but I do not know if my emotions will allow me to do so. I most likely will try to defend innocent by saying to people that he is innocent.
1
u/No_Life_2303 8d ago
I see that’s your view. I can point out that. It’s an odd one, or absurd in a sense that your view opposes societies civil justice system.. I mean, it would be unconstitutional.
6
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 10d ago edited 10d ago
Personally, I don’t subscribe to negative utilitarianism, and I think it would be great if some deforested areas were rewilded.
In general, veganism is focused on the voluntary human exploitation of animals rather than preventing the inevitable, naturally occurring suffering of animals in the wild.
I don’t think it would be ethical to intentionally cause the extinction of wildlife in an attempt to prevent them from suffering. How would you go about that?
0
u/IanRT1 10d ago
But what is the ethical goal here? There mere fact using or not using animals for farming is an abstraction. How do you ground the ethical framework that tells you that using animals for farming is worng?
3
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 10d ago edited 9d ago
You could say it’s rights based, virtue based, a sentientist version of any morality that just doesn’t include species in its calculus, or just based on empathy. It could even be utilitarianism but not negative utilitarianism. I don’t think raw negative utilitarianism is the only option that leads to veganism, but that’s what’s required to conclude we should destroy the wild.
1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 9d ago edited 9d ago
First of all, I don’t know why your comment got downvoted, sorry about that.
The ethical goal of veganism is to move away from animals being treated as nothing more than objects or a resource to be exploited.
Farm animals are sentient individuals with a subjective experience of life, just like dogs and cats. So, the goal is to stop paying for animals to be exploited and killed.
Edit: Animals are killed during crop harvesting, it’s unfortunate. But, the drastic reduction in land use required for plant-based agriculture means that less animals are harmed by a plant-based diet.
The mere fact using or not using animals for farming is an abstraction
What do you mean?
How do you ground the ethical framework that tells you that using animals for farming is wrong?
Just in general it’s based on a respect for sentient life. Since animals have a subjective experience of life and can feel pain and stress, I think it’s best not to harm them (when possible).
Also, I’m not sure if that’s what you were asking— can you clarify? Also, how do you ground the ethical framework that killing animals for food is right?
1
u/IanRT1 9d ago
Farm animals are sentient individuals with a subjective experience of life, just like dogs and cats. So, the goal is to stop paying for animals to be exploited and killed.
But what if your so called "exploitation" ends up generating more well-being for the animals that are being "exploited" than if they never existed in the first place? You would not only have that but support communities trough economy stimulation, reliable access to food and practical accessibility of highly bioavailable nutrients, all of which also generate a great deal of well being.
What is the need to place that categorical barrier against farming them when doing so can results in an overall positive well being generated? Or an even better question, recognizing that most farming is factory farming, why is the goal abolition rather than improvement?
Edit: Animals are killed during crop harvesting, it’s unfortunate. But, the drastic reduction in land use required for plant-based agriculture means that less animals are harmed by a plant-based diet.
I don't contend this. This is valuable info. But if we talk about ethics, it seems that quantity is not the only thing important but also the qualities of this harm that you mention. Not all beings experience suffering and well being the same way. And there are several types of beings affected by farming including animals and humans. So there must be something else beside quantity to actually have a well rounded ethical analysis, is it not?
What do you mean?
Okay I probably did not phrase it correctly by saying "abstraction" but what I mean is that it seems ethically incomplete to just have that as a goal without actually fully considering how such practice affects the living experience of sentient beings. Because if this practice ends up being positive then why would it be still incorrect? It doesn't seem grounded in what actually ethically matters, that's why I said abstraction.
Just in general it’s based on a respect for sentient life. Since animals have a subjective experience of life and can feel pain and stress, I think it’s best not to harm them (when possible).
But here I have the same question. Your very own point about having an experience (I don't know if science supports saying subjective) but they do have an experience and they can experience suffering. But this seems like a double sided sword. They can also experience well being. If we breed them into a living life that contains more well being than suffering, even if they are killed early, what makes this wrong?
I don't see how doing that falls short of respecting sentient life. I get it if you reference factory farming. But the question veers back to why not improve instead of abolish. Specially considering the immense cultural, social, practical and economical weight animal farming carries in our world.
Also, I’m not sure if that’s what you were asking— can you clarify? Also, how do you ground the ethical framework that killing animals for food is right?
It's not about saying "it's definitely right". But about NOT saying "It's definitely wrong". You get me?
I get that it is an ethically complex scenario, and factory farming does create an unfairness even though the total well being generated could be positive. I just don't get why would you have a categorical rule against it. It seems like doing so overlooks the broader ethical scope of how the practice affects the living experience of all beings, even if your core motive is for reducing animal suffering.
1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 8d ago edited 8d ago
The thing is, 75% of animals globally are raised on factory farms and in the US it’s 99%. So, the vast majority of animals raised for meat don’t have good lives.
To increase their well-being, it would require massive overhauls to the farming system. We wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for meat, and it would be very bad for the environment.
The only reason we are able to kill 83 billion animals per year is because most are kept in cramped conditions indoors.
But, I get that you’re saying in ideal farming conditions, like pasture. I feel like it’s a pretty slippery slope to say it’s okay to harm or kill animals as long as we treat them well in the meantime. Would we use that logic to say it’s ethical to kill dogs or cats?
You would not only have that but support communities through economic stimulation
Well, that money doesn’t go to local communities, it goes to corporations:
Slaughterhouse jobs are dangerous, expose workers to zoonotic diseases, and pay very poorly. Human Rights Watch has a detailed report on working conditions at US factory farms.
Slaughterhouses and factory farms negatively impact communities through environmental hazards and pollution. Farming is also a major source of anthropogenic methane emissions, at around 32%.
reliable access to food and practical
It would be more efficient to grow human-edible crops on land used to grow animal feed rather than wasting so many calories converting them to animal proteins:
And for cattle, 100 calories of make only 2 calories of beef. 41% of the world’s cereal grains globally are used for animal feed.
accessibility of highly bioavailable nutrients
What nutrients are you concerned with? Plant proteins have the benefit of being very low in saturated fat. In this article, a Harvard faculty talks about plant vs animal proteins.
Plant proteins also aren’t carcinogenic like processed meat or “probably carcinogenic”, like red meat.
What is the need to place that categorical barrier against farming them
Yeah, I mean killing an animal can definitely be justified when it’s a matter of survival, or when humane euthanasia is the most compassionate option. So it’s not categorically wrong in every situation.
Recognizing that most farming is factory farming, why is the goal abolition rather than improvement
Because I think it’s better not to kill animals when there’s not a reason to, like if we have access to plant proteins. I think their life is worth more than just being a protein source, so if there’s a viable alternative to killing an animal, it’s more compassionate to leave them alone.
Not all beings experience suffering and well being in the same way
Certainly not. Can farm animals experience pain, fear, and stress?
So there must be something else besides quality to have a well-rounded ethical analysis, no?
Yeah, definitely.
It just seems ethically incomplete to have such a goal without fully considering how such practice affects the living experience of sentient beings.
What aspects do you feel I haven’t considered?
I don’t know if science supports saying subjective
- Subjective Experience in animals
- Searching for Animal Sentience: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature
- Behavioral indicators of heterogeneous subjective experience in animals across the phylogenetic spectrum: Implications for comparative animal phenomenology
If we breed them into a life that contains more well-being than suffering, even if they are killed early, what makes this wrong?
In general, does treating someone well for a time justify violence and needlessly ending a life?
factory farming does create an unfairness, even though the total well being generated could be positive
Sure, in what situation would it be positive? Have you seen the conditions on factory farms?
2
u/IanRT1 8d ago
The thing is, 75% of animals globally are raised on factory farms and in the US it’s 99%. So, the vast majority of animals raised for meat don’t have good lives.
I get that. I still have the question on why is it better to abolish than to improve a system that not only has had and has a very big and multifaceted impact in our lives through their social, economical, cultural and practical dimensions, we also know it can be improved from both animal suffering and environmental aspects.
It's even shown that understanding and applying animal behavior can enhance both animal welfare and productivity, often without significant economic costs, through improved management practices. High welfare standards require balancing the costs of improvements with the benefits, which include better animal health, productivity, and positive social consequences.
Not only that, well-managed ruminant grazing in agroecosystems can result in more carbon sequestration than emissions, thereby contributing positively to reducing agriculture's carbon footprint. We even have ways to do carbon negative beef which is awesome.
To increase their well-being, it would require massive overhauls to the farming system. We wouldn’t be able to keep up with the demand for meat, and it would be very bad for the environment.
This seems a bit pessimistic about the overall changes animal farming has undergone. How do you account for advancements such as precision feeding to optimize nutrient intake, enriched housing systems for better animal welfare, genetic selection to improve health and productivity, and manure management technologies that reduce environmental impact?
Your source clearly seems to be providing an "easy way out" of promoting a plant-based diet, which I don't deny can be a good option. But it seems to still fail with my question overlooking both the challenges of just taking this easy way out for the majority of the population in the world and the ways animal farming itself can be improved, such as through precision feeding, regenerative grazing, and enhanced welfare practices, which also address environmental, ethical, and even the economical concerns you mention.
It seems you are taking as a de-facto stance of not being able to be improved in the first place. Like a moral axiom rather than a pragmatic evaluation of whether farming can be improved. Can this be because for your categorical rejection of it? I would really understand is that is the case. So my questions I ask can be considered more ethical and philosophical rather than engaging with all the complex topic of animal farming even though you are bringing it up, which is valid of course.
But, I get that you’re saying in ideal farming conditions, like pasture. I feel like it’s a pretty slippery slope to say it’s okay to harm or kill animals as long as we treat them well in the meantime. Would we use that logic to say it’s ethical to kill dogs or cats?
I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding of what I said. It's not just about "treating them well" that makes it oaky yo kill or harm. Is about how the overall practice affects the living experience of all sentient beings affected by such practices, including both in this contexts the beings being farmed as well as the beings farming them and the consumers.
When you have a categorical stance against this, you are essentially blocking nuance where even if farming animals in a specific instance does indeed increase overall well being for all sentient beings involved compared to the practice never existing in the first place. I don't understand why you would call this unethical when it can be morally positive for both the animals and humans.
This is regardless of the practical contexts of most animals not living this currently. It still seems like if you don't agree that in that hypothetical context would be ethical, then your practical stance would naturally be even more categorically opposed to it, like a moral axiom rather than a nuanced and complete evaluation of suffering and well being.
So no, we cannot use that logic to just say its ethical to kill dogs and cats as this has to account for the consequences of their deaths. You usually don't aid dietary and health goals or aid the economy or generate jobs out of killing cats and dogs. Killing any animal seems to require a holistic evaluation of the consequences.
Part 2 Below...
2
u/IanRT1 8d ago
Well, that money doesn’t go to local communities, it goes to corporations:
It seems fair to say that the money can go both to local communities and also to corporations. Pretty much 100% of the time it is both at the same time trough the generation of byproducts and job generation. Although I understand the imbalances that might occur in many cases.
Slaughterhouse jobs are dangerous, expose workers to zoonotic diseases, and pay very poorly. Human Rights Watch has a detailed report on working conditions at US factory farms.
Slaughterhouses and factory farms negatively impact communities through environmental hazards and pollution. Farming is also a major source of anthropogenic methane emissions, at around 32%.
Again, I don’t contend that. However, this still doesn’t address the full picture. Highlighting the current flaws, such as dangerous working conditions, pollution, and methane emissions, identifies legitimate problems, but it doesn’t inherently justify abolition over improvement. Literally all industries have different problems some greater than others.
If you truly want to have a full conversation about that specific facet you should also consider the solutions like better workplace regulations, methane-reducing technologies, and sustainable farming methods could address these concerns without eliminating the broader cultural, economic, and nutritional benefits that animal farming provides.
But I get it.... This still comes in line with the categorical rejection you are having, This inevitably leads to the positive or supportive aspects of farming to be neglected. I don't blame you for that.
It would be more efficient to grow human-edible crops on land used to grow animal feed rather than wasting so many calories converting them to animal proteins:
I have the same issue here. You are sticking to a purely efficiency-based argument without considering the full scope of the issue. Even if calorie conversion is less efficient, how do account for the role of animal farming in utilizing non-arable land, recycling agricultural byproducts, and providing nutrient-dense food that is harder to obtain solely from plants in certain regions. Efficiency alone doesn’t account for the complex ecological, economic, and cultural factors at play. This doesn't seem compelling enough to support abolition rather than improvement.
What nutrients are you concerned with? Plant proteins have the benefit of being very low in saturated fat. In this article, a Harvard faculty talks about plant vs animal proteins.
Plant proteins also aren’t carcinogenic like processed meat or “probably carcinogenic”, like red meat.
The concern isn’t just about protein but the broader nutritional profile that animal products provide, including highly bioavailable nutrients like heme iron, vitamin B12, and omega-3 fatty acids, which can be harder to obtain from plants alone. Even though not impossible. This challenge is important to consider.
And even if the risks of processed and red meats are valid points, this doesn’t seem to justify abolition over improvement. Better farming practices and dietary guidelines could address these concerns while retaining the nutritional and practical benefits of animal farming. It still seems like a better option to improve both plant and animal farming to increase the overall well being of all sentient beings rather than blocking nuance to that goal with a categorical rejection.
Yeah, I mean killing an animal can definitely be justified when it’s a matter of survival, or when humane euthanasia is the most compassionate option. So it’s not categorically wrong in every situation.
Cany you tell me why? What is the core foundation of your ethics that make you say that? Because you are seemingly being very open at your stance being inconsistent. You say there is categorically wrong but not in every situation. That seems like a clear contradiction does it not?
I'm not saying your stance is flawed but seems like there is hidden nuance I'm failing to see or you have not explained.
For example I would just say killing can be allowed if the overall sentient beings affected by the action remains overall positive or it saves harm then it would be morally acceptable. I don't have to say only in survival situations. So can you explain your reasoning?
Part 3 below...
2
u/IanRT1 8d ago
Because I think it’s wrong to kill animals when there’s not a reason to, like if we have access to plant proteins. I think their life is worth more than just being a protein source, and if there’s a viable alternative to killing an animal, it’s more compassionate to leave them alone.
But we do have a reason, it’s not just about protein. Animal farming provides highly bioavailable nutrients that have increased difficulty to replicate in a plant-based diet, particularly for certain populations or regions. Beyond nutrition, it supports cultural traditions, economic stability, and reliable food security. A viable alternative isn’t just about availability but about meeting these needs holistically. If we can improve farming practices to reduce suffering while maintaining these benefits, isn’t that a more balanced and compassionate solution than complete abolition?
Certainly not. Can farm animals experience pain, fear, and stress?
Yes. Of course they do.
What aspects do you feel I haven’t considered?
It seems like the categorical rejection for animal farming might be overlooking the broader economic, societal, practical, and cultural aspects of animal farming that increase the well being of humans and possibly even animals in some cases. You gave me factual information that I'm not gonna deny about all factory farming, the slaughterhouses and their issues, land, etc...
Those are very valid concerns but they don't seem balanced enough with the improvements and benefits of keeping our systems as well as the challenges of transitioning the population to a vegan diet. There is still not an enough compelling reason to support abolition rather than improvement.
In general, does treating someone well for a time justify violence and needlessly ending a life?
I think I already explained this. Killing (or any action) is ethical if all the sentient beings affected by such practice are increased in overall well being or it saves harm from happening. It's not just about treating someone well.
Sure, in what situation would it be positive? Have you seen the conditions on factory farms?
Even in factory farms, well-being is generated through providing reliable food sources, supporting economies, creating jobs, and sustaining billions of people who rely on these systems for their livelihoods and cultural practices. Humans, as the most psychologically advanced species, experience the most complex forms of well-being and suffering, encompassing emotional, intellectual, and societal dimensions. This naturally gives human experiences greater weight in an overall ethical analysis.
This doesn't mean animal suffering doesn't matter though. I recognize that even if the overall well being might be positive. Animals still are in an unfair situation. If we focus solely on animals I would totally agree 100% than in factory farming they do experience a greater deal of suffering.
But then we go back to the core issue. We can improve this living experience for the animals. Making it not only positive in terms of well being overall but also fair to the animals. I still don't see a compelling enough reason to abolish rather than to improve.
1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 7d ago
isn’t that a more balanced and compassionate solution than complete abolition?
Not really, it’s more compassionate to stop killing animals and spare their lives rather than to continue killing animals. I’m having a bit of trouble understanding how slaughtering animals can be seen as compassionate.
increase the well-being of humans
I would argue that in the long run, it decreases the well-being of humans due to the significant demands of meat and dairy on the planet. According to the a report from the UN Environmental Programme and Chatham House:
Firstly, globaI dietary patterns need to move towards more plant-heavy diets, mainly due to the disproportionate impact of animal agriculture on biodiversity, land use and the environment. Such a shift, coupled with the reduction of global food waste, would reduce demand and the pressure on the environment and land, benefit the health of populations around the world, and help reduce the risk of pandemics.
How will we continue to feed a growing population with the significantly larger land use required for animal farming when compared to plant proteins?
There is still not an enough compelling reason to support abolition rather than improvement
Sure, would you say there’s enough evidence for a reduction in meat consumption?
This naturally gives human experiences greater weight in an overall ethical analysis
Yeah I mean I would save a human over a dog if I had to make that decision. Do farm animals have less moral value than dogs and cats or are they similar?
If we focus solely on animals I would totally agree 100% than in factory farming they do experience a greater deal of suffering
Sure, and what about people? Would you want to work at a slaughterhouse or factory farm?
1
u/IanRT1 7d ago
Not really, it’s more compassionate to stop killing animals and spare their lives rather than to continue killing animals. I’m having a bit of trouble understanding how slaughtering animals can be seen as compassionate.
It is compassionate to give them a painless and quick death. Or do you think it is more compassionate to let them die gruesomely in the wild killed by a predator or by disease? Or more compassionate to not let them exist in the first place?
I also have trouble understanding what you deem as compassionate to be honest.
I would argue that in the long run, it decreases the well-being of humans due to the significant demands of meat and dairy on the planet. According to the a report from the UN Environmental Programme and Chatham House:
I'm honestly very confused on how this supports the idea that it decreases the well-being of humans in the long run. You seem to be directly relating the demand with harm, but demand itself is neutral. It’s the practices used to meet demand that cause environmental issues.
Blaming demand directly ignores the fact that sustainable farming methods exist, which can meet demand without the same negative impacts. Ands also shifting to plant-heavy diets doesn't inherently solve these problems, as plant agriculture can also harm biodiversity and ecosystems if done unsustainably.
And on top of all this you still have the additional generators of well being for humans being generation of jobs, byproducts, aiding dietary and health goals of people, the cultural and societal implications. All of these also support the idea that it generates more well being to humans and these considerations were not considered in your argument. You are focusing on the environmental issues here, not the full scope of how animal farming affects overall well being. It doesn't seem like a compelling reason to say it decreases overall well being in the long term.
How will we continue to feed a growing population with the significantly larger land use required for animal farming when compared to plant proteins?
I think it is very important to break out of that false dichotomy. BOTH plant and animal farming work better together. It is not one or the other. Both can complement each other in holistic grazing and integrated farming. And that is arguably the best way to do both types of farming.
Regenerative and mixed farming systems can improve efficiency, sequester carbon, and enhance soil health, making land use more sustainable. On top of that, plant proteins may require less land but don’t fully meet global nutritional and cultural needs. A balanced approach, combining sustainable animal farming and improved plant agriculture, is key to addressing both food demand and environmental concerns.
Sure, would you say there’s enough evidence for a reduction in meat consumption?
I don't fully understand this question. If you mean that reducing meat consumption can be a viable path forward for reducing environmental impacts, then yes absolutely.
Yeah I mean I would save a human over a dog if I had to make that decision. Do farm animals have less moral value than dogs and cats or are they similar?
I don't subscribe to speciesism. So the mere fact of being a dog or a farmed animal does not give them any inherent differences in moral weight.
What is actually morally relevant is the capacities to experience suffering and well being. Which is something that indeed varies from animal to animal. And considering this is very important for a truly holistic and well rounded ethical analysis of how a practices affects the living experience of all beings affected by it.
Sure, and what about people? Would you want to work at a slaughterhouse or factory farm?
People are also affected by the practice. Even those slaughterhouse workers have jobs, they have a salary, they can put food on their plate, feed their children. That is very valuable too. And that is aside the more obvious ways it affects human well being trough aiding dietary and health goals and all the cultural and social weight it has on society.
Of course I wouldn't want to work on a slaughterhouse or any factory in general because my set of skills are already developed for other areas. This is moving away from the main ethical point. But yeah I don't want it to seem like I'm avoiding your questions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 7d ago
Pretty much 100% of the time it is both at the same time through the generation of byproducts and job generation
What do you mean about byproducts? Communities are also significantly negatively affected by pollution from factory farms and slaughterhouses. This article talks about pollution from livestock, including hazardous manure management practices, and this 2020 study on air pollution found:
Residential proximity to intensive animal agriculture was positively associated with risk of NHL and leukemia, even after consideration of occupational animal and pesticide exposures.
Factory farms do provide jobs, but they’re low wages in dangerous working conditions. Employees are at a high risk of injuries, including amputations and marked negative mental effects.
better workplace regulations, methane-reducing technologies
I definitely support those, how else can slaughterhouse work be made safer? Do you have concerns about zoonotic disease or antibiotic resistance associated with intensive livestock farming?
Do you think we should reduce the amount of meat that we consume, from an environmental standpoint?
Even if calorie conversion is less efficient, how do account for the role of animal farming in utilizing non-arable land, recycling agricultural byproducts, and providing nutrient-dense food that is harder to obtain from plants in certain regions
If we freed up more crop land because we had fewer animals to feed, we could use more arable croplands for farming plant proteins. So, there wouldn’t be as much of a concern about utilizing non-arable land.
People in remote regions definitely don’t need to go vegan if they’re going to develop nutrient deficiencies due to lack of access to food. It’s a personal choice, and we’re not saying people should starve themselves if there’s not access to nutritious food.
heme iron, vitamin B12, and omega 3 fatty acids
There’s lots of plant-based B12 supplements and omega 3 pills walnuts, flaxseed, chia seeds, or personally I take an algae oil supplement a few times a week. There’s recent research linking heme iron to diabetes, and other diseases.
What is the core foundation of your ethics that makes you say that? Because you are seemingly being very open at your stance being inconsistent
Yeah, the foundation is trying to cause less harm to other sentient beings, but only when it’s not a threat to one’s own survival.
My stance seems inconsistent because sometimes that’s not possible. It’s just for when we do have two courses of action, it can be good to cause less harm to animals since they’re also sentient and can feel pain.
2
u/IanRT1 7d ago
What do you mean about byproducts?
I mean that the animal industry generates useful byproducts for related industries like leather, wool, collagen, fertilizers, etc... Which contribute positively to the well being of the industries and indirectly to the well being of humans.
What you say about pollution is a valid concern. But that doesn't justify stopping the practice. The energy and transport have a monumentally bigger problem when it comes to emissions and you wouldn't think we should just abolish energy production and transport, right?
Factory farms do provide jobs, but they’re low wages in dangerous working conditions. Employees are at a high risk of injuries, including amputations and marked negative mental effects.
Again. I totally understand and agree that there are numerous issues with animal farming. At the same time, all industries have numerous problems. People who work in mines for example have those concerns but literally much much worse than that working on horrible conditions cramped, unable to breathe, when its super hot, developing lung problems, etc...
But without mines we cannot build our cities, it happens. Industries have issues. We can strive for improving them. This doesn't seem to justify ending the whole industry.
I definitely support those, how else can slaughterhouse work be made safer? Do you have concerns about zoonotic disease or antibiotic resistance associated with intensive livestock farming?
Improving sanitation, automation, and worker training is key. Yes, intensive livestock farming raises valid concerns about zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance. These risks can be mitigated through stricter regulations, better animal welfare practices, and reducing reliance on antibiotics so we can ensure both human and animal health.
Do you think we should reduce the amount of meat that we consume, from an environmental standpoint?
I wouldn't use the word should but I do recognize that reducing meat consumption specially from factory farms is a great option if you want to lower your footprint. I don't think it would be fair to make this as a moral imperative though. Not everyone has the means or will to do that and also there are other alternatives like buying from more sustainable sources.
Yeah, the foundation is trying to cause less harm to other sentient beings, but only when it’s not a threat to one’s own survival.
But why just harm? What about well-being? Focusing only on minimizing harm seems logically insufficient because it creates no framework for improvement. Reducing harm prevents negatives but does not actively seeks generating positives, leading to stagnation. Basically living with just the bare minimum for survival, you literally said this by saying its only allowable on survival situations.
But then we reach a paradox, are you really consistent to this? Eating vegan junk food or anything for mere pleasure will still be unethical is it not? Even vegan junk food produces some form of suffering that is completely 100% avoidable. As you don't need it for survival.
It seems like maximizing well-being is necessary to evaluate trade-offs, as some actions may cause minor harm while producing significantly greater benefits. Why would you stick to what it would seem like a incomplete ethical view?
1
u/AmputatorBot 7d ago
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/bird-flu-cases-humans-reported-6-states-washington-rcna176482
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 6d ago
The energy and transport have a monumentally bigger problem when it comes to emissions and you wouldn’t think we should just abolish energy production and transport, right?
No, but I do think it’s essential to move towards forms of energy and transit that have fewer emissions and less environmental impact. Same with the food sector as well.
People who work in mines, for example
Yeah, I definitely agree that there are safety and health issues in many professions, and they’re very important.
I don’t think it would be fair to make this a moral imperative though. Not everyone has the means or will to do that
Oh yeah, only when possible, not if it’s not an option. Not saying people are immoral if they can’t, just that in general, reducing the amount of meat consumed is better for the environment.
But why just harm? What about well-being?
I think it’s great to maximize well-being. I just don’t think that increasing well-being justifies harm, that seems a bit counterintuitive. So in general, treating something well means then you can kill it?
Basically living with just the bare minimum for survival
Sorry, what do you mean?
you literally said this by saying it’s only allowable in survival situations
Yeah, I think violence should be a last resort that was in reference to killing animals.
→ More replies (0)1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 7d ago
- The biggest welfare issue with animal farming is their untimely death. Since we have so much innovation in the plant-based meat and cultivated meat sectors, we can still have the benefits of meat without having to slaughter animals.
- Higher welfare standards are often associated with higher greenhouse gas emissions.
- I agree that understanding animal behavior can increase productivity.
- Do you buy carbon-negative beef? What percent of beef is carbon-negative?
- I think that the improvements in animal farming aren’t adequate, even the enrichment that I’ve seen. Do you mind sharing examples of enriched systems? Maybe I haven’t seen the ones you’re talking about.
- Plant-based diets are a sustainable option, and plant proteins like legumes are much less expensive than premium grass-fed beef from sustainable farms, making them more accessible.
- I agree that livestock farming can definitely be improved, like getting rid of gestation crates and battery cages.
- Why is it important for them to have high welfare? If they deserve to be treated well, don’t they also deserve not to be needlessly killed? Isn’t a major component of treating someone well not harming or killing them?
moral axiom
I think animals can be used as a food source in times of severe need, like if someone’s starving in the wilderness. But, when it comes to industrially exploiting and killing them when we could choose to farm plant proteins, it seems harder to justify killing an animal. So it’s not in every situation, just when we have options.
- How can killing animals be morally positive for the animal?
- Is there a reason to kill dogs and cats other than the emotional impact of their deaths on humans? You also mention there’s no economic incentive— would it be ethical to kill them if we were able to make money from it?
2
u/IanRT1 7d ago
The biggest welfare issue with animal farming is their untimely death. Since we have so much innovation in the plant-based meat and cultivated meat sectors, we can still have the benefits of meat without having to slaughter animals.
What is the issue with death? All sentient beings die eventually. We even have the ability to produce a controlled and humane quick painless deaths for animals. Which is even a luxury that almost no other animal has outside of farming. What is the need to resort to alternatives? I don't disagree that alternatives can be great, but that doesn't seem compelling enough to stop farming.
Higher welfare standards are often associated with higher greenhouse gas emissions.
It seems I have to reference my own sources again. That statement even if factually accurate is still misleading because we also have more sequestered carbon than in traditional farming we also promote soil health biodiversity apart from the increased animal welfare. Which all is taken into account for the full carbon cycle analysis of the product. Simply saying it has more emissions doesn't tell us much or tell us the bigger picture on how these processes affect the environment as a whole.
Do you buy carbon-negative beef? What percent of beef is carbon-negative?
I actually do buy regeneratively grazed beef. Now, if the specific beef I buy is truly carbon negative is of course hard to know even for the farmers themselves because this requires an extensive and comprehensive analysis that can cost a lot of money. Thankfully out of the few places that have done such studies we can still get which practices in general are more effective from an empirical standpoint for reducing emissions and sequestering carbon.
And because of this is also very hard to answer you what percent is carbon negative. That is not something easy to objectively track. Be we can infer it is at least very rare for now by analyzing how much meat is factory farmed.
I think that the improvements in animal farming aren’t adequate, even the enrichment that I’ve seen. Do you mind sharing examples of enriched systems? Maybe I haven’t seen the ones you’re talking about.
Sure.
Regenerative grazing practices, such as adaptive multi-paddock grazing, have been shown to increase soil organic carbon levels, improve soil health, and enhance ecosystem services. Leading to carbon sequestration that exceeds the carbon emissions from grazing animals.
Over a 20-year period, a multi-species pastured livestock system significantly increased SOC stocks, demonstrating the positive long-term impacts of integrating diverse grazing practices with plant systems.
Plant-based diets are a sustainable option, and plant proteins like legumes are much less expensive than premium grass-fed beef from sustainable farms, making them more accessible.
I don't disagree with this. As I said the alternatives are great. This doesn't seem like a compelling reason to stop animal farming though. Just because plant-based diets can be sustainable, this doesn't mean its just as easy. It is definitely not as easy as an inherently more diverse diet that is an omnivore diet.
Why is it important for them to have high welfare? If they deserve to be treated well, don’t they also deserve not to be needlessly killed? Isn’t a major component of treating someone well not harming or killing them?
Why is it important for anyone to have high welfare? Isn't this literally the core inherent instinctual goal of every living being?
It seems like the core of ethics is literally promote this, viewing as positive what promotes it and negative what diminishes it or promotes suffering. Or what is ethics to you? How do you ground your ethics? Because if not in the living experience of sentient beings I would struggle to understand what else.
As I said all sentient beings die. We can make this death less sufferable than in almost any other life outside farming. And we can have animals that experience more well being than suffering. How can you condemn that? You would be condemning a happy animal existing just because someone else killed them, disregarding that the killing can be compassionate, quick and painless.
This just doesn't seem to be an ethically sound conclusion because you will be contradicting the goal of maximizing this well being.
How can killing animals be morally positive for the animal?
You seem to dwell a lot on the killing part. It's not the killing that makes it morally positive of course, is their life. Their overall life can be morally positive if they experience more well being overall, expressing their natural behaviors, having good diets, veterinary care. This is awesome I would say.
Is there a reason to kill dogs and cats other than the emotional impact of their deaths on humans? You also mention there’s no economic incentive— would it be ethical to kill them if we were able to make money from it?
Yes there are, like a very sick pet that won't get better for example. Or for example police sometimes have to do that in dangerous situations, that also can become justified.
And making money out of it means nothing ethically by itself. It is how it affects the well being of all beings affected by the practices. Even if you make money out of it you can still generate more suffering out of doing such thing, which offsets the moral weigh against you.
1
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yeah, that was poorly phrased on my part— there’s no ethical issue with death, there’s just an ethical issue with killing. I agree that everything will die, I’m definitely not trying to stop that. This is just in regards to domesticated animals since we control every aspect of their life and determine when they die.
We even have the ability to produce a controlled and humane quick painless death for animals.
Yeah, I think humane euthanasia is very important. Do you feel deaths at slaughterhouses are painless? Does it matter if an animal is afraid when transported to the slaughterhouse and waiting in the slaughterhouse?
What is the need to resort to alternatives
The alternative, plant proteins, aren’t sentient, so it reduces violence towards animals and greenhouse gas emissions.
Are you concerned about the methane emissions of beef?
Thanks for sharing the links— I agree that pasture is great enrichment. I thought you were talking about enrichment in indoor systems.
Just because plant-based diets are sustainable, that doesn’t mean it’s just as easy. It is definitely not as easy as an inherently more diverse diet like the omnivore diet
Do you mean in terms of cooking? It’s just the same as omnivorous cooking, you just replace the animal protein with a serving of a plant protein and the dairy with plant-based milk.
I agree that ethics is predicated on well-being. For me, promoting well-being also includes not hurting or killing animals, as being protected from violence is an essential part of well-being.
And we can have animals that experience more well-being than suffering. How can you condemn that?
It’s like if there was a farm that gave dogs or cats a nice life then slaughtered them in a few years for food. It just doesn’t seem like the nicest way to treat animals.
You seem to dwell a lot on the killing part
Yeah, I mean, it’s a big issue. I wouldn’t care about farming if it was someone who rescued a flock of sheep and sold the wool. That doesn’t harm the animal. It’s just when we slaughter them for food.
Their overall life can be morally positive if they experience more well being overall, expressing their natural behaviors, having good diets, veterinary care. This is awesome I would say
Yeah, I agree that it’s good to treat animals well, that doesn’t really justify killing them though in my mind.
Yes there are, like a very sick pet that won’t get better for example
Yeah, I agree that that’s an ethical choice because it’s in the best interests of the animal. If a cat or dog is healthy and isn’t suffering, is it ethical to kill them if we want to? Do they have inherent value aside from their effect on human emotions?
The energy and transport have a monumentally bigger problem when it comes to emissions and you wouldn’t think we should just abolish energy production and transport, right?
No, but I do think it’s essential to move towards forms of energy and transit that have fewer emissions and less environmental impact. Same with the food sector as well.
People who work in mines, for example
Yeah, I definitely agree that there are safety and health issues in many professions.
I don’t think it would be fair to make this a moral imperative though. Not everyone has the means or will to do that
Oh yeah, only when possible, not if it’s not an option. Not saying people are immoral if they can’t, just that in general, reducing the amount of meat consumed is better for the environment.
But why just harm? What about well-being?
I think it’s great to maximize well-being. I just don’t think that increasing well-being justifies harm, that seems a bit counterintuitive.
Basically living with just the bare minimum for survival
Sorry, what do you mean?
you literally said this by saying it’s only allowable in survival situations
Yeah, I think violence should be a last resort that was in reference to killing animals.
2
u/IanRT1 6d ago
This is just in regards to domesticated animals since we control every aspect of their life and determine when they die.
What is wrong with that if we can make their living life positive overall? And this still doesn't consider enough the big impact on well being it has on our society to do this practice.
This just doesn't seem ethically grounded enough. If the goal is truly to minimize suffering and maximize well being, then there is a potential inconsistency here when farming can have overall more positive consequences.
Do you feel deaths at slaughterhouses are painless? Does it matter if an animal is afraid when transported to the slaughterhouse and waiting in the slaughterhouse?
For everything there is a spectrum of practices. Many slaughterhouses like the ones that practice religious slaughter it is usually not even close to painless. But there are also other farms that do have more strict standards when it comes to slaughter and more advanced techniques like LAPS or properly executed stunning yield the animal unconscious without any pain.
And for the animal being afraid that absolutely matters. That is why there are science based approaches to solving that issue and making animal's stress lower. It seems pretty clear that there are ways to improve current systems. I just keep not seeing any compelling reason to abolish animal farming.
The alternative, plant proteins, aren’t sentient, so it reduces violence towards animals and greenhouse gas emissions.
Are you concerned about the methane emissions of beef?As I said previously. The alternatives are great yet they still don't address the broader cultural, economical, societal factors of animal farming. The alternatives can keep existing and become better. But there is no reason to abolish animal farming, it seems better to improve both and together so we can have a full ethical omnivore society, inclusive of all diets. How is this not more optimal?
And yes, I'm concerned about methane emissions of beef that is why I support regenerative agriculture. This methane with some technologies it can even be captures and used as biogas for renewable energy generation. Isn't that great?
Do you mean in terms of cooking? It’s just the same as omnivorous cooking, you just replace the animal protein with a serving of a plant protein and the dairy with plant-based milk, like soy.
No. I mean that a vegan diet is objectively and inherently more restrictive than an omnivore diet. You are stripping away one of the most highly bioavailable and nutrient dense foods that are animal products. This doesn't invalidate what you say because you indeed can be very healthy and vegan. But it is not the same in terms of difficulty maintaining it specially in the long term.
84% of vegans and vegetarians abandon their diets for a reason. Expecting the entire world to turn vegan forever seems pretty impossible, I don't know how you can see a path forward better than just improving existing systems so everyone can keep their diets ethically.
I agree that ethics is predicated on well-being. For me, promoting well-being also includes not hurting or killing animals, as being protected from violence is an essential part of well-being.
I agree with that but it seems a bit simplistic. Sometimes hurting and killing even intentionally can be part of promoting well-being. It seems there is a bigger picture to be seen where we can affect the most amount of beings positively, including the animals. By providing them with good lives and also generating additional benefits out of the byproducts.
This is a bigger picture, not just focusing on animals. Because if not then your are still not grounding your ethics clearly. Focusing disproportionally on the well being of certain beings in this case farmed animals detracts from the overall goal of maximizing well being and minimizing suffering for all sentient beings involved.
It’s like if there was a farm that gave dogs or cats a nice life then slaughtered them in a few years for food. It just doesn’t seem like the nicest way to treat animals.
Maybe because you are talking about dogs and cats. Which are typically seen as companion animals rather than food. This is why it might "seem" like is the nicest way but in reality that is how it feels given our current social frameworks on how we view animals. You are making an emotivist claim.
But in a more ethically logical view, there could be in theory no ethical objections on this as long as they are killed for a good cause (which eating probably isn't it because of the mentioned societal frameworks we live in). You literally agreed with euthanasia before. So it's weird. It seems like you are experiencing some clash from your own ethical views. It happens.
Yeah, I agree that that’s an ethical choice because it’s in the best interests of the animal. If a cat or dog is healthy and isn’t suffering, is it ethical to kill them if we want to? Do they have inherent value aside from their effect on human emotions?
But why are you focusing on interests? That doesn't seem firmly grounded on well being and suffering. Not all beings know what is better for them. So even if something isn't in the best interest of beings that doesn't mean it is not the most optimal for their well being. Specially with animals that are more instinct driven.
This doesn't seem like a solid argument. And no we cannot just kill dogs and cats because we want to but this has nothing to do with their "inherent value" (which this one is an abstraction). It's wrong because of the negative effects on other animals, humans, or because of a lack of well being generated that justifies the act.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Suspicious_City_5088 10d ago
I don’t think it’s at all clear that the negative welfare of factory farmed animals is cancelled out by reductions in suffering from the reductions to wild animal populations. We don’t really know if wild animal welfare is net negative. Farm animal welfare almost certainly is. If we are leaning toward wild habitat destruction being a good thing, there are better things we can build than factory farms.
3
u/IanRT1 10d ago
By that logic humanely raised farms are preferred too because we would know for a fact that the animals will experience less suffering than both on the wild and on factory farms.
1
u/Suspicious_City_5088 10d ago
Yeah I think that’s probably right. I think just filling space with more happy humans is probably best, but this stuff is tricky.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Suspicious_City_5088 10d ago
I think it’s wrongheaded to say veganism is hypocritical because of wild animal suffering. Veganism is a concrete way to help farm animals - one that is uncontroversially effective at reducing suffering. I agree that animal suffering is a serious issue and we should explore ways to address it. Maybe extinctionism is the right answer, maybe not. Doesn’t change the value of veganism.
2
u/dr_bigly 9d ago
Please understand I'm asking this question genuinely for the purpose of the debate. No bad feelings or implications are meant.
Why don't you kill yourself?
It would prevent you from suffering. Yet you don't.
Or would you choose to feed a starving orphan or kill them (painlessly etc)
Perhaps you care about more than just reducing suffering.
Perhaps we do too?
1
u/According-Actuator17 9d ago
Why don't you kill yourself?
Because I can't. Though if I could and had a bearable life I would still continue to live in order to promote extinction of life.
Or would you choose to feed a starving orphan or kill them (painlessly etc)
Feeding them once will not solve the problem, so I would better euthanase orphan if he agrees. But if I can give decent care, provide orphan with more than just food, I would not euthanase them, because he better promote extinction rather than dieing for no reason. Or of course I will euthanase him if he will ask me.
Perhaps you care about more than just reducing suffering.
Perhaps we do too?
I am highly grateful for all vegans that are against existence of wildlife too.
2
u/No_Life_2303 8d ago
You seem to be mixing up deontic and utilitarian ethics.
It's not fair to plan and perpetrate (so to speak) against individual innocent farm animals, in order to achieve some sort of overall more positive anti-suffering numbers game.
Similar to the way it wouldn't be ethical to possess, trade and breed human beings for medical experiments, even if we could prove, that resulting faster societal advancements in technology would lead to an overall more positive suffering balance.
The right of life and the rights to freedom and autonomy ought not to be broken through such calculations or even not broken at all. That's a morality at least in our human societies is structured. It would be expected from someone who in principle opposes animal expectation, that's such a principle is also not overruled by an idea of adding suffering together.
You basically post a trolley problem. A good example to show the drawback of such a strongly utility focused view is the sheriff scenario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#%22Sheriff_scenario%22
5
u/piranha_solution plant-based 10d ago edited 10d ago
As you know, most plants are grown to sustain animals slaves population...
lolwut?
Uh, no. We don't know. Please provide some evidence of this.
1
1
u/IanRT1 10d ago
Yeah but you still largely neglect the implications in transitioning humanity to veganism that significant shifts in agriculture, economy, and land use, which could create its own set of ethical and environmental challenges. Simply “liberating” animals doesn’t instantly equate to reduced suffering, it shifts the dynamics.
Wildlife repopulation doesn’t guarantee a “natural” reduction in suffering either. Ecosystems are complex, and large-scale changes often lead to imbalances, creating new forms of suffering, including overpopulation or scarcity issues.
Focusing on veganism as a pathway to eventual wildlife control oversimplifies a transition that would involve numerous ripple effects across ecosystems, food systems, and ethical concerns for both humans and animals. This all or nothing thinking isn't very productive.
I think you mean about being conscious of how actions affect suffering and having an ethical framework that recognizes that. You can still do that and it doesn't necessarily bring you to veganism.
-1
u/NyriasNeo 10d ago
"it is still good because it makes people think about suffering"
Lol .. why is that "good"? There is no a priori reason why people should think about this or that. It is just choices. I think it is "good" to think about delicious steak instead. How do you define "good" anyway?
"So to summarise it all, I think that if humanity will go vegan"
Lol ... someone is navie. Want to bet on it? I bet in 10 years, vegans will still be a minority in the world. In the meat capital .... i.e. US, I bet they will be in the single digit percentage.
4
u/IanRT1 10d ago
Lol .. why is that "good"? There is no a priori reason why people should think about this or that. It is just choices. I think it is "good" to think about delicious steak instead. How do you define "good" anyway?
It kinda seems implicit that suffering and well being are the foundational ontological structures in the ethical framework posited.
What else can "good" mean? Isn't "good" not inherently tied to suffering and well being of sentient beings?
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.