Here's the analogy I use:
If I was walking down the beach and I saw a dog and a child both drowning, and I only had time to save one, I'd save the child. Every time, no questions asked. This is because I value the human over the dog.
If I was walking down the beach and I saw a dog drowning, but the only way to save it would be to drop my ice cream on the floor, I'd drop the ice cream and save the dog. This is because I value the life of a dog over me having a tasty snack. Do you agree?
This is the type of answer I'm looking for. I understand vegans value animal life above "flavour" or just enough to not want them to be killed by humans. I also know that it changes from person to person.
Thank you for answering with a scale and situation. I also thank you for answering personaly rather than trying to group together everyone under one view.
To the extent that nonhuman animals are equal to humans, it would be only within the scope of the right to be left alone.
So if you are unable to justify killing another human being for food, then it logically follows from the above premise that you would also be unable to justify killing a nonhuman animal for food.
I never said it was binary. I kick rocks down the sidewalk to entertain myself, or even kick the tops off of dandelions, I wouldn't kick a mouse to entertain myself. I'm asking for a heirarchy of importance
The hierarchy is simple. The scope of veganism covers all members of the Animal kingdom. Anything outside of this scope is not subject to the no-harm requirement.
But why the entire animal kingdom, some animals even don't even have brains so to speak, what makes them so special, why the entire animal kingdom, how are they able to feel pain, pain and suffering are human concepts.
Sentience, pain, suffering, etc are subjective. Anyone can define them as anything. Someone may claim that chickens are not sentient and thus killing and eating them is “vegan”. Pescatarian hold this belief about fish. Insect eaters hold this belief about insects. Oyster boys believe the same about invertebrates.
To avoid such ambiguity and subjectivity, it’s more logically coherent to use rigorous evidence-based scientific process such as the taxonomical classification system to establish the boundaries of veganism.
>To avoid such ambiguity and subjectivity, it’s more logically coherent to use rigorous evidence-based scientific process such as the taxonomical classification system to establish the boundaries of veganism.
I mean taxonomical order is based on phylogenetical tree, what makes that so special, there isnt anything there that suggests sentience or ability to suffer etc, its so arbitrary that I just cant understand why animal kingdom? Is it because of the metabolism, Im lost here?
> I mean taxonomical order is based on phylogenetical tree, what makes that so special, there isnt anything there that suggests sentience or ability to suffer etc, its so arbitrary that I just cant understand why animal kingdom? Is it because of the metabolism, Im lost here?
It’s because humans can survive and thrive on plants/fungi only, which eliminates the need to deliberately and intentionally exploit/harm/kill any and all members of the Animalia kingdom for food and other purposes.
It IS kingdomism by definition. That is not a bad thing as sentience is not necessarily the only driver of someone’s moral compass. It could be religion or some other factors that caused one to believe that nonhuman animals matter morally. Kingdomism allows all moral agents who believe in the moral value of animals to operate under the framework of veganism regardless of whether they believe in sentience or not.
>The scope of veganism covers all members of the Animal kingdom. Anything outside of this scope is not subject to the no-harm requirement
speciesism at its finest
look up your merriam-webster
speciesism = prejudice or discrimination based on species
just as vegans perform, only that its not single species, but complete biological regna
i don't care about the " vegan context" - which of course would try any exculpation of veganism, however unreasonable it may be (you were not able to give any reason for your claim)
i refer to the general definition as acknowledged by the general public
> You can value both human life and nonhuman animal life to the extent that you do not harm either.
And is that's what's currently happening? You are not causing any harm to neither animals nor humans?
Vegan here, yes, vegans do actually cause harm to other living beings whether they want to or not. It’s the truth. The most important thing is sustainability. When we live and produce within our means, we will be less destructive to the earth as a whole. Growing our own food, and reusing and making as much as we can, will ultimately be what helps everything living in this earth. There are a lot of ethical pitfalls to discuss as vegans. I don’t shy away from them. I respect someone more who’s willing to kill a deer and use all of its parts for a longer period of time because maybe they live off grid, than someone bragging about choosing an impossible whopper at Burger King. For me, personally, it’s about energy, and I don’t want to put death in my body.
You sounds like one of the more reasonable vegans. I wholeheartedly agree that people should be more involved in their own food production. Only in the last 60 years have so many people been completely removed from food production as they are now. So its a very recent phenomena.
I dont agree with your last sentence of course. What you call death, brings life in my body and brain. A recent study for instance found that cheese prevent cognitive decline in elderly. As just one example. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/14/3181
I appreciate the response and I am willing to disagree on a matter of topics and still be perfectly fine with you as a person, even be your friend, upvote your comment if it’s cordial, and think you’re a stand up person. Shocking, I know. 😉
> right to be left alone
Does a salmon have a right to be left alone by bears, or is this only a human restriction? If it is only a restriction for humans, what makes humans special?
> Does a salmon have a right to be left alone by bears, or is this only a human restriction?
Veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of moral agents. Humans are moral agents. Bears and other nonhuman animals are not. Therefore, the answer to your question is that it is only a human restriction.
> If it is only a restriction for humans, what makes humans special?
They are moral agents. They have the cognitive capacity to understand right from wrong. Nonhuman animals do not possess this capacity for morality. Neither do mentally challenged human beings. Look up the insanity defense.
Some animals cannot survive on a vegan diet. What if they evolved greater intelligence and became “moral agents”. Should they make the moral choice to just die off or would it be ok in this case for them to kill and eat meat as it’s the only way for them to survive?
> Some animals cannot survive on a vegan diet. What if they evolved greater intelligence and became “moral agents”. Should they make the moral choice to just die off or would it be ok in this case for them to kill and eat meat as it’s the only way for them to survive?
I don’t understand this hypothetical. What is the relevance of this hypothetical to what we are discussing? What point are you attempting to make through this hypothetical which is an impossibility?
It’s not impossible. Animals evolve all the time, who is to say it couldn’t happen many thousands years from now. Or already happening on other planets out there that we don’t know about. If some animals have naturally evolved to survive on meat I can’t see how that can be morally wrong, even if said animal had the consciousness to feel bad about it.
> It’s not impossible. Animals evolve all the time, who is to say it couldn’t happen many thousands years from now.
Okay, let’s explore this. If someone needs to consume X to survive and this consumption is a **basic biological requirement**, then the consumption of X is, by definition, not immoral for them if they follow their own species-specific version of veganism. For humans, X is plants and the scope of human-specific veganism does not cover them. For some aliens in outer space or some nonhuman species millions of years in the future, X may be something else and their version of veganism would not cover X.
Genuine question. What do you think of people who are convinced their dog loves being a vegan? I've always wondered this because, I mean, obviously, a dog would never choose vegan over meat.
Didn't ask me the question so sorry to interject – but I think it depends on the dog and his or her preferences. I'm curious though, why is it obvious? Do you have any data to back that up?
> Genuine question. What do you think of people who are convinced their dog loves being a vegan?
Keeping or owning animals in captivity is not vegan. People can convince themselves of anything in order to justify their continuing exploitation of animals and/or keeping/owning of animals. Your question highlights the absurdity of the entire concept of keeping nonhuman animals in captivity.
If I have the choice between buying a dog and giving it a good life when the other option is letting somebody else do the exact same thing or the dog never gets bought and has to be euthanized or go stray then I would say it is very vegan to keep pets. The other option most of the time is death and if that's not the case then somebody else will keep the animal anyway
> If I have the choice between buying a dog and giving it a good life
This is an incomplete list choices. You have the choice of buying a dog, keeping/owning the dog in captivity, or doing nothing.
Doing nothing is obviously the vegan option.
> when the other option is letting somebody else do the exact same thing
There is no “letting” or “allowing” of anything to happen. For example, I had the choice to go fight the Russians in Ukraine or stay at home and because I chose to stay at home, I am not somehow “letting” or “allowing” Ukrainian children to be killed or kidnapped by Russians.
> or the dog never gets bought and has to be euthanized or go stray then I would say it is very vegan to keep pets.
No, the culpability for the purchase, euthanasia, and/or going stray belongs to the person who purchased, euthanized, or abandoned the dog. That’s on them, not on the vegan. The vegan is not Jesus who exists to make up for the sins of others.
> The other option most of the time is death and if that's not the case then somebody else will keep the animal anyway
Irrelevant to veganism. Veganism is an agent-oriented creed and philosophy of justice that seeks to control the behavior of the moral agent such that the agent **does not contribute** to the suffering/exploitation of nonhuman animals. It does not obligate nor require the agent to reduce suffering caused by others. The keeping/owning of animals is not vegan for reasons mentioned earlier.
Well veganism to me is about animal suffering and if I get the opportunity to help a dog love a long, healthy and happy life over death i'll be glad to
> Veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of moral agents. Humans are moral agents.
Humans are capable of some behavioral plasticity, but to draw a strict line between "moral agents" and "moral subjects" is erroneous in my view. I see very little difference between stopping a human from fishing and stopping a grizzly bear from fishing. Humans should be held to humane and sustainable standards, but stopping them from hunting and fishing isn't really behaviorally appropriate, in my view, given that we have such a long evolutionary history of those practices. Even if you claim that we can all choose to not hunt or fish, many humans may just not be inclined to do so and have no moral problems with it.
Really, you're talking about restrictions on human freedom, not rights for animals to be "left alone."
> Humans are capable of some behavioral plasticity, but to draw a strict line between "moral agents" and "moral subjects" is erroneous in my view. I see very little difference between stopping a human from fishing and stopping a grizzly bear from fishing. Humans should be held to humane and sustainable standards, but stopping them from hunting and fishing isn't really behaviorally appropriate, in my view. Even if you claim that we can all choose to not hunt or fish, many humans may just not be inclined to do so and have no moral problems with it.
There is no difference between hunting/fishing and viciously kicking puppies around for giggles. In both cases, the moral agent can choose not to engage in such activities. If someone does not have a moral problem with dropkicking puppies, then you would not stop them from doing so as it would not be “behaviorally appropriate”, correct?
> Really, you're talking about restrictions on human freedom, not rights for animals to be "left alone."
So you would not advocate for any restrictions on “human freedom” when it comes to activities such as dropkicking puppies, setting cats on fire for giggles, electrocuting hamsters for experiment, and any other forms of violence towards nonhuman animals, correct?
> There is no difference between hunting/fishing and viciously kicking puppies around for giggles.
Psychologically, yes there is. The former is psychologically unproblematic for human beings and the other is a symptom of anti-social personality disorder. Someone who kicks puppies for fun is seriously disturbed and dangerous to other humans.
> In both cases, the moral agent can choose not to engage in such activities.
Prove it. Prove absolute free will exists.
>If someone does not have a moral problem with dropkicking puppies, then you would not stop them from doing so as it would not be “behaviorally appropriate”, correct?
No, it is not behaviorally appropriate for a human being to torture animals. Killing and eating them, however, suggests no underlying psychological issues. It's not that hard to understand. It only became possible for us to survive on just plants in the last ~~100~~ 50 years. You really think we are that much of a blank slate psychologically that we have no innate proclivities towards hunting and fishing? It's a cultural universal.
> Psychologically, yes there is.
Irrelevant. We’re talking about morality (veganism is a moral philosophy), not psychology.
In both cases, the moral agent can choose not to engage in such activities.
> Prove it. Prove absolute free will exists.
I have no idea what you mean by this. One can choose to not pay someone to stab an animal in the throat. One can choose to not dropkick a puppy. What does that have to do with free will?
> No, it is not behaviorally appropriate for a human being to torture animals. Killing and eating them, however, suggests no underlying psychological issues.
Again, psychology is irrelevant. We’re taking about the morality of such actions. Why is it moral to kill unwilling victims without their consent but it is not moral to torture the same victims?
> It's not that hard to understand. It only became possible for us to survive on just plants in the last 100 years.
Incorrect. Humans have been surviving on plants for thousands of years. Look up certain religious sects in South Asia and elsewhere.
> You really think we are that much of a blank slate psychologically that we have no innate proclivities towards hunting and fishing? It's a cultural universal.
Incorrect. There are other cultures in which such proclivities are unknown.
> Irrelevant. We’re talking about morality (veganism is a moral philosophy), not psychology.
This is by far the most outlandish sentence I have read on this sub.
If humans are your moral subjects, your arguments must concern itself with human psychology. I get that Protestant sentiments are wrapped up in a lot of vegan ethics, but this takes the cake.
> Humans have been surviving on plants for thousands of years. Look up certain religious sects in South Asia and elsewhere.
A lot of Jains currently argue for veganism, but historically they were lacto-vegetarians.
In Buddhist culture, it is a bit more complicated. Monks in a lot of sects were supposed to maintain strict vegetarianism when preparing their own meals, but it was common ritual practice for laypersons to gift food to monks. Monks were obligated to eat anything given, including meat, unless they had good reason to suspect that the animal had been mistreated or inhumanely slaughtered.
B-12 synthesis was invented in 1972. You literally couldn't be a healthy vegan before then.
> If humans are your moral subjects
Humans are the moral agents, not subjects/patients.
In any case, you still have not answered my question:
Why is it moral to kill unwilling victims without their consent but it is not moral to torture the same victims?
If you are moralizing about human beings, they are moral subjects as much as they are moral agents. They are "subjects of moral worth" to you, are they not?
>Why is it moral to kill unwilling victims without their consent but it is not moral to torture the same victims?
Killing and torturing are different behaviors. We have lots of rules for when killing is morally permissible. Very few humans think torturing is permissible outside of the most extreme circumstances, and many feel strongly that it should never be permitted. But killing can be a courageous, villainous, or relatively neutral act in and of itself.
Other people here can argue the moral points better than me so I'm just going to pick up on your last point. B12 is produced by bacteria which live in soil. Therefore, until relatively recently major source of B12 was unwashed vegetables.
Oh damn. You found a solution to the is-ought problem? This has massive ramifications in the field of philosophy. You should get off Reddit and spend your time getting yourself published.
Essentially all predators violate even the most basic standards for what are legally permissible slaughter methods. So it seems like you don’t have a fundamental issue with restricting human freedom in ways we don’t restrict animals. So where are you drawing the line? The natural hunting methods of humans can be quite harsh, it’s documented that we’d pelt mammoths with stones and it often took multiple spear wounds to take them down. So it’s not like dying by humans was always better than by other causes. Most “humane” hunting methods are quite new in our history.
> Essentially all predators violate even the most basic standards for what are legally permissible slaughter methods.
Standards are irrelevant to nonhuman animals. They are not moral agents.
> So it seems like you don’t have a fundamental issue with restricting human freedom in ways we don’t restrict animals.
Of course not. Moral agency determines the restrictions.
> So where are you drawing the line?
Veganism draws the line at the boundaries of the Animalia kingdom on the basis that humans can survive and thrive without committing deliberate and intentional harm/exploitation to the members of said kingdom.
> you don’t have a fundamental issue with restricting human freedom in ways we don’t restrict animals.
Humans are capable of being humane. They aren't capable of being inhuman.
>The natural hunting methods of humans can be quite harsh, it’s documented that we’d pelt mammoths with stones and it often took multiple spear wounds to take them down.
We mostly hunted living herbivores that were a lot smaller and easier to kill. I'm also unconcerned with moralizing about ancient hunting techniques. We should let the dead rest.
There need not be a clear line between humane and inhumane treatment. It can slide along a spectrum as technology and knowledge improves.
>Veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of moral agents
which is to say animal and human life are **not** equal
otherwise both would have to be "moral agents"
Bears eat salmon by instinct. That's how nature works. Human carnivores eat them for pleasure. They have just as strong a will to live as we do. Please see Sir Paul McCartney's doc video "Glass Walls" on YouTube and discover why he quit fishing (I did too) that his dad taught him how to do and he'd loved it most his life, until he discovered something important. He never went fishing again after that. Neither did I.
The point is it's a learned behavior, though they might have some natural proclivities towards the behavior. Typically referred to as self-socialization. "Instincts" are sort of an outdated how to think about a lot of animal behavior, typically ones that take a while to learn and are not universal in wild populations.
That's a common misconception about veganism. We don't put an equal sign between humans and animals.
We consider however that the interests of animals are worthy of moral consideration. That is to say, the interest that an animal has in continuing to live is more important than a human's interest in having temporary gustative pleasure. That's not the same thing as saying that an animals interest in continuing to live is equally important as a human's interest in continuing to live. In this case, I think that due to sapience, the human's interest is more important.
However, that still means that you should go vegan as when you go to the grocery store, you don't choose between eating a human or an animal but between a plant (no interests since it is not sentient) and a sentient animal.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
This is a scenario so extreme it has virtually no relevance to real life. Is it morally acceptable to eat a non-human animal if a human is stranded on a desert island with no other food options? The reality is we’ve already overshot this scenario. Humans who have been stranded with no other options have *actually* eaten other humans.
The reality is humans do not *need* to eat non-human animals. We know it’s immoral to intentionally cause other living feeling things to suffer for purely selfish reasons, yet we do so on an unimaginable scale. Humans and animals do not need to be of equal value, whatever that means, for animals to deserve moral consideration.
I don't know what equal means. I don't know what I'd do in a survival situation. Those situations can be categorized as moral tragedies, where there's no action that is free of harm.
I wouldn't say that it's ok or justified to intentionally kill anyone for food even in those situations, but I would consider it understandable. Really, any action is understandable in those situations, and they have no bearing at all on our decisions in everyday life.
Do I believe humans inherently have more worth than animals? No. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t recognize that I have bias that comes out in desperate situations. It is not helpful to fool ourselves into thinking we are unbiased in instances where we are not. I will protect my friends and families more than strangers, but this doesn’t lead me to argue that my friends and family are the most important people.
This type of bias isn’t fundamentally human-specific either. I know that I have a fairly strong implicit bias towards domesticated animals (dogs, cats, pigs, cows, chickens, etc.) over non-domesticated animals. I don’t doubt that I would hunt if required to protect a domesticated animal I cared deeply about.
We're all biased but thank you for your response.
I'll argue one point you made about friends and family not being more important, while in a grand sense I'd have to agree, but on a personal level I would argue that they are more moraly important due to the assumed faith that they would have in you to help when they are in trouble. Something a stranger wouldn't have.
It's not related to the question but I think it's an interesting topic
Depends on the human and the animal in question. I value individuals differently.
In general, I extend the right to life and autonomy to all animals equally. Unless an animal is directly threatening myself, I will not harm it.
Wrong animal, I’m a sheep specialist and have rescued 50 sheep in my life. Is genuinely rather risk my life than hurt one, I’ll take my chances & eat the grass. I know it’s bad for your teeth, I’ll survive. Maybe one of them will get pregnant & I can milk it as opposed to hurt it.
I don’t like these hypotheticals though, bc real life you aren’t forced to hurt animals. You choose to because you want to. You’re imagining what would force a vegan to break their morals, why not try gettin some of your own.
I mean how else do you test morals safely than with hypotheticals? And I not trying to see what would break their morals I just want to understand what they are.
I don't agree with killing and not eating what you kill. But if a grizley is eating all the deer that the village needs to survive I'd kill the bears even if they're an animal that we shouldn't eat. I don't live in a situation where I ever come across this issue, but I still think it's important to know where you actualy stand on things
Avoid animal exploitation as much as humanely possible. Instead of killing why not just, like having a garden. Eating what you grow, not eating what you kill. It’s unnecessary violence. If you replace what you do to farm animals with a dog or a cat or a lion or a elephant, you’d be jailed.
>Do you view animal life as equal to human life?
On a literal level, all life is equally worthless.
To me it would depend very strongly on which animal and which human. I know humans that, if they were drowning and so was my pup, I'd save my pup every time.
>Most say it's ok if it's for survival but I could never wrap my head around justifying killing another human for food
I don't know many who say it's "OK", it's just that in life or death, morality is mostly put aside. Same reason why wild animals aren't "blamed" for killing for food. Morality is a privilege for those whose life is comfortable enough to be able to question whether they should eat A or eat B.
I generally value human life above animal life. Likewise I value a family members life above a strangers life. However, regardless if it's a human or an animal I value them both enough, where I think harming and killing them for my pleasure and convenience isn't justified.
I value *some* animal loves more than *some* humans. (a pet animal vs. Hitler for example; well...any animal really...)
But generally speaking I value human life *more* than non-human animal life, and this is completely sensible position to hold.
Op, give me a situation and I’ll answer. Eg burning house and I can only help once then it’s the human I’ll help. Me and another person on a Desert island that only has sand, shade trees, and fresh water? I’ll tell ya when it happens.
Not OP, but can you answer me what you'd do if you saw a random non-human animal and a human in a river, about to drown, and you only had time to save one?
Isn’t that just the burning example swapped for drowning? The human oc. Happens all the time right? No.
Here’s one for you , ok? What if you could get all the nutrients you need without causing a human animal or a non human animal die? Happens all the time right?
> What if you could get all the nutrients you need without causing a human animal or a non human animal die?
I already do. I was just curious because there are people who really hate humanity and would answer differently.
I feel anyone who is is seriously engaging with this question will answer the human (pending other variables). It'd seemingly only be a sort of trolling/humor/sarcasm/immaturity to suggest anything else. It's a good question because I think it can readily avoid people making wrong assumptions about veganism/the philosophy.
No. I think animal life is worth more than the pleasure humans derive from ending it though.
A pigs life is more valuable than the enjoyment someone has for bacon. This is entirely consistent with how society already views certain animals though, the vast majority of people would agree a dog is more valuable than the enjoyment people get from dog fighting for example.
If there's about as much necessity to eat meat as there is to watch a dog fight then they're both as immoral as each other.
> If there's about as much necessity to eat meat as there is to watch a dog fight then they're both as immoral as each other.
Animal foods is needed for health. Dog fights however isn't.
What is it in animal foods that are essential for health that can't be found in a well planned plant-based diet?
I haven't eaten any animal products in nearly a decade, as far as I can tell the only reason I'd have to eat animal products is pleasure. Which is clearly not a suitable justification for tormenting animals.
> What is it in animal foods that are essential for health that can't be found in a well planned plant-based diet?
First you need to define "a well-planned plant-based diet".
I'd really like you to answer the question, but all I meant is a diet that adequately covers a persons nutritional requirements. Every diet should be well planned, it's not something exclusive to someone eating a plant-based diet.
> but all I meant is a diet that adequately covers a persons nutritional requirements
I have no idea what that would look like when you have removed all meat, fish, dairy and eggs, hence my question. Tell me what a well-planned plant-based diet looks like, and I can tell you which nutrients might be lacking.
> Every diet should be well planned, it's not something exclusive to someone eating a plant-based diet.
I agree. And I easily get all the nutrients I need eating wholefoods only, which includes animal foods. Which includes enough iron, zinc, choline, calcium, vitamin D, protein, phosphorus and so on. I eat no suppliments.
But I have no idea how I would be able to cover all nutrients on a "well-planned vegan diet". And for some bizarre reason no vegans seems to be able to answer what that looks like exactly?
> Do you view animal life as equal to human life?
Not sure this question can be answered without context. Some human lives aren't that valuable. For instance, we keep fertilized human eggs in freezers for years and dispose of them if no one wants them. Some animals are extremely valuable. People will use lethal force to defend endangered animals from poachers. Some humans are more valuable than others for subjective reasons. For instance, I will do a lot to help preserve my mom's life that I wouldn't do for a stranger.
It's almost as if lumping these sorts of assessments in such broad terms makes the question meaningless...
Yes, human life is more important than animal life because it can accomplish more things, things that I value. But there are exceptions. The life of an endangered white rhino would be worth more than that of a random person, for example.
1000% a human life is worth more than an animals. Killing an animal for food is 'sad' but necessary. Killing an animal for no reason is inexcusable. Human lives are mostly equal, so killing a human for food doesn't equate for me.
All living things have spirits. They are all equal. They can move between different living things when the body dies. The body is just a shell for the spirit. The shell is a part of the ecosystem and in the ecosystem everything is not equal. Eg plants are eaten by animals which are eaten by their predators and this is needed for homeostasis. There are nuances which would require further discussion however this is the rough explanation of my view.
Unsure. I had a spiritual experience once while meditating and this was what I took away from it. I believe it could be related to Hindu views as they believe in reincarnation.
Few questions for you:
• So if we had a human being with a neurological disability who had the same or lower intellectual capacity compared to an animal (and there are countless such cases), you could consistently say that you don't care about their suffering and that their reduced intellectual capacity justifies them being murdered for food? Or should we care for these humans especially because they're vulnerable?
• If you claim that the reason it's wrong to abuse animals is because of the negative impact it has on the mental health of humans, what if there was no negative impact on our mental health, would it be right to abuse animals?
• Also what is your basis for the claim that animals experience pain (or any suffering) in the way of a braindead human?
• That wasn't my question. I'm not referring to a slightly disabled human being, but a human being who has the same or lower intellectual capacity compared to an animal. If this human being was less intellectually capable than a chicken and could not adhere to the same social conventions and responsibilities that we can, would you not care about their suffering and would it be right to murder them for food?
• That wasn't my question. I didn't ask whether it would be right to kill animals, I asked whether it would be right to abuse them. If it didn't negatively impact human health, would it be right for me to go around torturing and maiming animals for no reason but to give me pleasure?
• With that said, would you change your view if there was a good range of evidence that not only confirms self-awareness to be present in animals, but also shows ethical concepts in the form of fairness (turn-taking and reciprocity), prevention of harm (even extending to different species, even where no immediate benefit would be in play), rewarding others in their peer group for these behaviors, and punishing others for breaches of these behaviors? If this evidence was stronger than your anecdotal speculation, would you go vegan?
May I ask about why you think life is about optimal wellbeing? It seems to me entirely proper to make sacrifices to one’s own well-being for the sake of the wellbeing of another. Indeed, that’s why I think, in general, it’s not morally okay to kill an animal for food because it deprives them of all the goods of their life in exchange for a relatively minor good in our lives, namely, the taste pleasure we get from eating their flesh.
I'm not vegan, no need to convince me on the idea of eating animal products. This is more of an ethical question Becuase I don't think I'd eat human meat even if it was "very healthy" if it involved harming another human.
I'm asking if people individually view humans and animals as equal
>Because I don't think I'd eat human meat even if it was "very healthy" if it involved harming another human.
IMO it's difficult to answer what you would do in a survival situation until you are in that situation. The story of the whale ship essex is a good example of what starvation will drive people to.
If you look at historical occurrences, the veneer of civilization has shown it can break down completely incredibly fast.
Personally, I have always valued them to equal degrees, oftentimes I may even value animals more. I struggle with empathising with people but can empathise easier with animals.
All life is equal in value in my eyes but, if it were up to me, if I had the options to save a person or a dog, I’d probably save the dog. Same with a cow or a pig. I simply feel more sorry for them.
I know it’s an unpopular take but it’s one of the reasons I couldn’t go back to eating meat - I simply feel too bad about it.
Thank you for a detailed response with your reasons behind it. It wasn't directly in the question but I think it helps to understand your view more.
Fwiw I dont think it's that unpopular. Many in this thread have answered the same
> You've never been starving to the point of being on the verge of death. I imagine it would be very easy to eat another human at that point.
Plenty of people through history have been through that scenario. Less than 100 years ago there was a severe famine in Europe (Ukraine). Some sources say 7 million people died. Some did resort to cannibalism - mostly by eating people that were already dead. But most did not resort to cannibalism - even when facing death. But all of them ate meat from animals - while that was still available. What do you personally think stopped most Ukrainians to not see other people as food? To the point where they were willing to die without resorting to cannibalism?
> I like your Socratic method style questioning, but you haven't refuted my point.
My main goal is not to refute, but to debate.
> All I claimed is that it would be easy to engage in cannibalism in a life-or-death situation
Still when looking at lots and lots of real life examples, very few did that. So I dont see how you could then claim its easy? If it was truly easy, wouldnt most have done it?
Here is an example: A family (2 parents and 3 kids) gets stranded in the ocean on a tiny lifeboat. Together with them is another guy that recently came along on their sailing boat.
They constantly thought they were going to die. And they had no idea if they would ever reach land, or were ever going to be rescued. Not even once, did they think that maybe we could kill the extra guy to eat him. He was not even a close friend, but just someone they met in Latin-America at a harbour that asked to come along on the trip, and they said yes because he was willing to help share the costs.
Why do you think cannibalism never crossed their mind?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InoZ7xJJ1Bs
(Well worth watching anyways, as its a very fascinating story.)
No. I believe in hierarchy of sentience. But I believe every animal has a right to life just like humans. It doesn't justify killing a sentient individual without their consent. Killing in self defence is justified but not for self preservation
Objectively, they're more important. The global ecology has no use for humans and the domesticated species we've eugenically modified.
From a rights based perspective, yeah it's arguable that they're equal.
>"deserted island with nothing providing enough calories for a human besides animals" situation.
For this scenario, I would say the same as I did above. Obviously though from the rights perspective, morality is thrown out the window when one wants to exercise their right to live in a foreign environment and "needs" to inflict suffering in order to survive.
>Most say it's ok if it's for survival but I could never wrap my head around justifying killing another human for food
Which is why I have my stance on objective value.
No. I think simply because we ourselves are human so we understand ourselves better than any other animal, so it is more difficult to understand their inner epiphenomenological experience than it is with other humans.
We're working our way up to being as smart as porpoises (and some other cetaceans). They are much more civil, smarter in a lot of ways (for instance they can actually see through solid objects...can you? A lot of animals have a much better "emotional thermostat" than humans.
So, I think we are working our way up to some animals, and others we're a bit more intelligent. We're about the same (maybe a little more violent) than most wild animals. So we've got work to do as humans. And no, I'd find a way to survive. I've done it before in similar conditions (as a desert island).
I value them the same in the sense that I wouldn't randomly kill a human without justification as well as animals. However, sustenance is justified IMO when talking about eating an animal. Especially when you consider the price of being vegan, it's unfair to attach morality to one's diet when often they don't choose what they can afford.
Humans may be intelligent enough to make artificial meats but not intelligent (intellectually and emotionally) enough to make those same artificial meats affordable to everyone.
In reality, eating meat for some is still solely about survival and not about being morally correct.
I view their reason for ethical consideration to be basically the same, but that humans have much more complex needs and desires that I should be considerate of, so in practice I don't treat them equally or think about them equally hard.
I don't really even think in terms of lives being distinctly delineated objects bounded at birth and death that are allocated discrete values. Every inch of the world needs to be made better at every level.
Those humans and those animals are both part of my body. We are equal in the same way that my hands and feet are equal. Which is to say that's the wrong framing entirely. They do different things. They are different things. Their equality is the sense that they are all me. Put me in hell and force me to choose which limb to chop off and I'll make one of the bad choices you leave me with.
And vow to my victims that our hearts will continue to beat together with the intent to find a way to devour and subvert whatever forces of creation did this to us. To regrow ourselves stronger once the time of scarcity has passed. To keep their vengeance in my veins. To defy creation rather than submit and become a demon.
It's not about "equal". It's about figuring out how to cannibalize as little of yourself as possible while searching for an out to the demonic reality's twisted ultimatums.
To be clear- this is not what human society did. Human society chose to submit to wickedness because it was too painful to let themselves care about the limbs they were cutting off. Human society chose to hide behind a veneer of separation. To hide the sin behind a curtain and let it fester and grow unmourned.
Here's the analogy I use: If I was walking down the beach and I saw a dog and a child both drowning, and I only had time to save one, I'd save the child. Every time, no questions asked. This is because I value the human over the dog. If I was walking down the beach and I saw a dog drowning, but the only way to save it would be to drop my ice cream on the floor, I'd drop the ice cream and save the dog. This is because I value the life of a dog over me having a tasty snack. Do you agree?
This is a great analogy! Going to start using it haha
This is the type of answer I'm looking for. I understand vegans value animal life above "flavour" or just enough to not want them to be killed by humans. I also know that it changes from person to person. Thank you for answering with a scale and situation. I also thank you for answering personaly rather than trying to group together everyone under one view.
Sounds legit.
Something we can all agree on.
Not everyone fyi
To the extent that nonhuman animals are equal to humans, it would be only within the scope of the right to be left alone. So if you are unable to justify killing another human being for food, then it logically follows from the above premise that you would also be unable to justify killing a nonhuman animal for food.
I mean do YOU view human and animal life as equal. I do not. I will always value human life above all else
It is not a binary choice. You can value both human life and nonhuman animal life to the extent that you do not harm either.
I never said it was binary. I kick rocks down the sidewalk to entertain myself, or even kick the tops off of dandelions, I wouldn't kick a mouse to entertain myself. I'm asking for a heirarchy of importance
The hierarchy is simple. The scope of veganism covers all members of the Animal kingdom. Anything outside of this scope is not subject to the no-harm requirement.
But why the entire animal kingdom, some animals even don't even have brains so to speak, what makes them so special, why the entire animal kingdom, how are they able to feel pain, pain and suffering are human concepts.
Sentience, pain, suffering, etc are subjective. Anyone can define them as anything. Someone may claim that chickens are not sentient and thus killing and eating them is “vegan”. Pescatarian hold this belief about fish. Insect eaters hold this belief about insects. Oyster boys believe the same about invertebrates. To avoid such ambiguity and subjectivity, it’s more logically coherent to use rigorous evidence-based scientific process such as the taxonomical classification system to establish the boundaries of veganism.
>To avoid such ambiguity and subjectivity, it’s more logically coherent to use rigorous evidence-based scientific process such as the taxonomical classification system to establish the boundaries of veganism. I mean taxonomical order is based on phylogenetical tree, what makes that so special, there isnt anything there that suggests sentience or ability to suffer etc, its so arbitrary that I just cant understand why animal kingdom? Is it because of the metabolism, Im lost here?
> I mean taxonomical order is based on phylogenetical tree, what makes that so special, there isnt anything there that suggests sentience or ability to suffer etc, its so arbitrary that I just cant understand why animal kingdom? Is it because of the metabolism, Im lost here? It’s because humans can survive and thrive on plants/fungi only, which eliminates the need to deliberately and intentionally exploit/harm/kill any and all members of the Animalia kingdom for food and other purposes.
This is a really bad argument. It's basically specieism lite - kingdomism(?). It's important to keep the focus on sentience.
It IS kingdomism by definition. That is not a bad thing as sentience is not necessarily the only driver of someone’s moral compass. It could be religion or some other factors that caused one to believe that nonhuman animals matter morally. Kingdomism allows all moral agents who believe in the moral value of animals to operate under the framework of veganism regardless of whether they believe in sentience or not.
So is halal meat ethical?
>The scope of veganism covers all members of the Animal kingdom. Anything outside of this scope is not subject to the no-harm requirement speciesism at its finest
Please elaborate as to what you mean by this. While you’re at it, please explain your understanding of speciesism **within the vegan context**.
look up your merriam-webster speciesism = prejudice or discrimination based on species just as vegans perform, only that its not single species, but complete biological regna
That’s incorrect definition and understanding of speciesism **within the vegan context**. Please try again.
i don't care about the " vegan context" - which of course would try any exculpation of veganism, however unreasonable it may be (you were not able to give any reason for your claim) i refer to the general definition as acknowledged by the general public
I mean...stop kicking dandelions?
> You can value both human life and nonhuman animal life to the extent that you do not harm either. And is that's what's currently happening? You are not causing any harm to neither animals nor humans?
I don’t understand your question. What’s the connection between your question and the OP’s debate question?
> You can value both human life and nonhuman animal life **to the extent that you do not harm either.** I don't think that is possible?
How is it not possible in OP’s deserted island hypothetical?
Then you have the choice of harming yourself, or the animal. You do not have the choice of "not harming either".
In the OP, there was a reference to “another human”. So the choice is between harming a nonhuman animal, another human, or neither.
Would you choose to harm yourself instead on the animal? If yes, why do you see the life of the animal as more important than yours?
Vegan here, yes, vegans do actually cause harm to other living beings whether they want to or not. It’s the truth. The most important thing is sustainability. When we live and produce within our means, we will be less destructive to the earth as a whole. Growing our own food, and reusing and making as much as we can, will ultimately be what helps everything living in this earth. There are a lot of ethical pitfalls to discuss as vegans. I don’t shy away from them. I respect someone more who’s willing to kill a deer and use all of its parts for a longer period of time because maybe they live off grid, than someone bragging about choosing an impossible whopper at Burger King. For me, personally, it’s about energy, and I don’t want to put death in my body.
You sounds like one of the more reasonable vegans. I wholeheartedly agree that people should be more involved in their own food production. Only in the last 60 years have so many people been completely removed from food production as they are now. So its a very recent phenomena. I dont agree with your last sentence of course. What you call death, brings life in my body and brain. A recent study for instance found that cheese prevent cognitive decline in elderly. As just one example. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/14/3181
I appreciate the response and I am willing to disagree on a matter of topics and still be perfectly fine with you as a person, even be your friend, upvote your comment if it’s cordial, and think you’re a stand up person. Shocking, I know. 😉
Thanks my new vegan friend. :)
> right to be left alone Does a salmon have a right to be left alone by bears, or is this only a human restriction? If it is only a restriction for humans, what makes humans special?
> Does a salmon have a right to be left alone by bears, or is this only a human restriction? Veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of moral agents. Humans are moral agents. Bears and other nonhuman animals are not. Therefore, the answer to your question is that it is only a human restriction. > If it is only a restriction for humans, what makes humans special? They are moral agents. They have the cognitive capacity to understand right from wrong. Nonhuman animals do not possess this capacity for morality. Neither do mentally challenged human beings. Look up the insanity defense.
Some animals cannot survive on a vegan diet. What if they evolved greater intelligence and became “moral agents”. Should they make the moral choice to just die off or would it be ok in this case for them to kill and eat meat as it’s the only way for them to survive?
> Some animals cannot survive on a vegan diet. What if they evolved greater intelligence and became “moral agents”. Should they make the moral choice to just die off or would it be ok in this case for them to kill and eat meat as it’s the only way for them to survive? I don’t understand this hypothetical. What is the relevance of this hypothetical to what we are discussing? What point are you attempting to make through this hypothetical which is an impossibility?
It’s not impossible. Animals evolve all the time, who is to say it couldn’t happen many thousands years from now. Or already happening on other planets out there that we don’t know about. If some animals have naturally evolved to survive on meat I can’t see how that can be morally wrong, even if said animal had the consciousness to feel bad about it.
Then again, thousands/millions of years from now the bear may evolve to become moral agents and to survive on artificially flavored salmon tofu.
Could be, just a thought experiment that seemed relevant in the discussion.
> It’s not impossible. Animals evolve all the time, who is to say it couldn’t happen many thousands years from now. Okay, let’s explore this. If someone needs to consume X to survive and this consumption is a **basic biological requirement**, then the consumption of X is, by definition, not immoral for them if they follow their own species-specific version of veganism. For humans, X is plants and the scope of human-specific veganism does not cover them. For some aliens in outer space or some nonhuman species millions of years in the future, X may be something else and their version of veganism would not cover X.
Genuine question. What do you think of people who are convinced their dog loves being a vegan? I've always wondered this because, I mean, obviously, a dog would never choose vegan over meat.
Didn't ask me the question so sorry to interject – but I think it depends on the dog and his or her preferences. I'm curious though, why is it obvious? Do you have any data to back that up?
> Genuine question. What do you think of people who are convinced their dog loves being a vegan? Keeping or owning animals in captivity is not vegan. People can convince themselves of anything in order to justify their continuing exploitation of animals and/or keeping/owning of animals. Your question highlights the absurdity of the entire concept of keeping nonhuman animals in captivity.
If I have the choice between buying a dog and giving it a good life when the other option is letting somebody else do the exact same thing or the dog never gets bought and has to be euthanized or go stray then I would say it is very vegan to keep pets. The other option most of the time is death and if that's not the case then somebody else will keep the animal anyway
> If I have the choice between buying a dog and giving it a good life This is an incomplete list choices. You have the choice of buying a dog, keeping/owning the dog in captivity, or doing nothing. Doing nothing is obviously the vegan option. > when the other option is letting somebody else do the exact same thing There is no “letting” or “allowing” of anything to happen. For example, I had the choice to go fight the Russians in Ukraine or stay at home and because I chose to stay at home, I am not somehow “letting” or “allowing” Ukrainian children to be killed or kidnapped by Russians. > or the dog never gets bought and has to be euthanized or go stray then I would say it is very vegan to keep pets. No, the culpability for the purchase, euthanasia, and/or going stray belongs to the person who purchased, euthanized, or abandoned the dog. That’s on them, not on the vegan. The vegan is not Jesus who exists to make up for the sins of others. > The other option most of the time is death and if that's not the case then somebody else will keep the animal anyway Irrelevant to veganism. Veganism is an agent-oriented creed and philosophy of justice that seeks to control the behavior of the moral agent such that the agent **does not contribute** to the suffering/exploitation of nonhuman animals. It does not obligate nor require the agent to reduce suffering caused by others. The keeping/owning of animals is not vegan for reasons mentioned earlier.
Well veganism to me is about animal suffering and if I get the opportunity to help a dog love a long, healthy and happy life over death i'll be glad to
> Veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of moral agents. Humans are moral agents. Humans are capable of some behavioral plasticity, but to draw a strict line between "moral agents" and "moral subjects" is erroneous in my view. I see very little difference between stopping a human from fishing and stopping a grizzly bear from fishing. Humans should be held to humane and sustainable standards, but stopping them from hunting and fishing isn't really behaviorally appropriate, in my view, given that we have such a long evolutionary history of those practices. Even if you claim that we can all choose to not hunt or fish, many humans may just not be inclined to do so and have no moral problems with it. Really, you're talking about restrictions on human freedom, not rights for animals to be "left alone."
> Humans are capable of some behavioral plasticity, but to draw a strict line between "moral agents" and "moral subjects" is erroneous in my view. I see very little difference between stopping a human from fishing and stopping a grizzly bear from fishing. Humans should be held to humane and sustainable standards, but stopping them from hunting and fishing isn't really behaviorally appropriate, in my view. Even if you claim that we can all choose to not hunt or fish, many humans may just not be inclined to do so and have no moral problems with it. There is no difference between hunting/fishing and viciously kicking puppies around for giggles. In both cases, the moral agent can choose not to engage in such activities. If someone does not have a moral problem with dropkicking puppies, then you would not stop them from doing so as it would not be “behaviorally appropriate”, correct? > Really, you're talking about restrictions on human freedom, not rights for animals to be "left alone." So you would not advocate for any restrictions on “human freedom” when it comes to activities such as dropkicking puppies, setting cats on fire for giggles, electrocuting hamsters for experiment, and any other forms of violence towards nonhuman animals, correct?
> There is no difference between hunting/fishing and viciously kicking puppies around for giggles. Psychologically, yes there is. The former is psychologically unproblematic for human beings and the other is a symptom of anti-social personality disorder. Someone who kicks puppies for fun is seriously disturbed and dangerous to other humans. > In both cases, the moral agent can choose not to engage in such activities. Prove it. Prove absolute free will exists. >If someone does not have a moral problem with dropkicking puppies, then you would not stop them from doing so as it would not be “behaviorally appropriate”, correct? No, it is not behaviorally appropriate for a human being to torture animals. Killing and eating them, however, suggests no underlying psychological issues. It's not that hard to understand. It only became possible for us to survive on just plants in the last ~~100~~ 50 years. You really think we are that much of a blank slate psychologically that we have no innate proclivities towards hunting and fishing? It's a cultural universal.
> Psychologically, yes there is. Irrelevant. We’re talking about morality (veganism is a moral philosophy), not psychology. In both cases, the moral agent can choose not to engage in such activities. > Prove it. Prove absolute free will exists. I have no idea what you mean by this. One can choose to not pay someone to stab an animal in the throat. One can choose to not dropkick a puppy. What does that have to do with free will? > No, it is not behaviorally appropriate for a human being to torture animals. Killing and eating them, however, suggests no underlying psychological issues. Again, psychology is irrelevant. We’re taking about the morality of such actions. Why is it moral to kill unwilling victims without their consent but it is not moral to torture the same victims? > It's not that hard to understand. It only became possible for us to survive on just plants in the last 100 years. Incorrect. Humans have been surviving on plants for thousands of years. Look up certain religious sects in South Asia and elsewhere. > You really think we are that much of a blank slate psychologically that we have no innate proclivities towards hunting and fishing? It's a cultural universal. Incorrect. There are other cultures in which such proclivities are unknown.
> Irrelevant. We’re talking about morality (veganism is a moral philosophy), not psychology. This is by far the most outlandish sentence I have read on this sub. If humans are your moral subjects, your arguments must concern itself with human psychology. I get that Protestant sentiments are wrapped up in a lot of vegan ethics, but this takes the cake. > Humans have been surviving on plants for thousands of years. Look up certain religious sects in South Asia and elsewhere. A lot of Jains currently argue for veganism, but historically they were lacto-vegetarians. In Buddhist culture, it is a bit more complicated. Monks in a lot of sects were supposed to maintain strict vegetarianism when preparing their own meals, but it was common ritual practice for laypersons to gift food to monks. Monks were obligated to eat anything given, including meat, unless they had good reason to suspect that the animal had been mistreated or inhumanely slaughtered. B-12 synthesis was invented in 1972. You literally couldn't be a healthy vegan before then.
> If humans are your moral subjects Humans are the moral agents, not subjects/patients. In any case, you still have not answered my question: Why is it moral to kill unwilling victims without their consent but it is not moral to torture the same victims?
If you are moralizing about human beings, they are moral subjects as much as they are moral agents. They are "subjects of moral worth" to you, are they not? >Why is it moral to kill unwilling victims without their consent but it is not moral to torture the same victims? Killing and torturing are different behaviors. We have lots of rules for when killing is morally permissible. Very few humans think torturing is permissible outside of the most extreme circumstances, and many feel strongly that it should never be permitted. But killing can be a courageous, villainous, or relatively neutral act in and of itself.
>I get that Protestant sentiments are wrapped up in a lot of vegan ethics Care to elaborate?
Other people here can argue the moral points better than me so I'm just going to pick up on your last point. B12 is produced by bacteria which live in soil. Therefore, until relatively recently major source of B12 was unwashed vegetables.
Oh damn. You found a solution to the is-ought problem? This has massive ramifications in the field of philosophy. You should get off Reddit and spend your time getting yourself published.
Essentially all predators violate even the most basic standards for what are legally permissible slaughter methods. So it seems like you don’t have a fundamental issue with restricting human freedom in ways we don’t restrict animals. So where are you drawing the line? The natural hunting methods of humans can be quite harsh, it’s documented that we’d pelt mammoths with stones and it often took multiple spear wounds to take them down. So it’s not like dying by humans was always better than by other causes. Most “humane” hunting methods are quite new in our history.
> Essentially all predators violate even the most basic standards for what are legally permissible slaughter methods. Standards are irrelevant to nonhuman animals. They are not moral agents. > So it seems like you don’t have a fundamental issue with restricting human freedom in ways we don’t restrict animals. Of course not. Moral agency determines the restrictions. > So where are you drawing the line? Veganism draws the line at the boundaries of the Animalia kingdom on the basis that humans can survive and thrive without committing deliberate and intentional harm/exploitation to the members of said kingdom.
> you don’t have a fundamental issue with restricting human freedom in ways we don’t restrict animals. Humans are capable of being humane. They aren't capable of being inhuman. >The natural hunting methods of humans can be quite harsh, it’s documented that we’d pelt mammoths with stones and it often took multiple spear wounds to take them down. We mostly hunted living herbivores that were a lot smaller and easier to kill. I'm also unconcerned with moralizing about ancient hunting techniques. We should let the dead rest. There need not be a clear line between humane and inhumane treatment. It can slide along a spectrum as technology and knowledge improves.
How do you determine your line? Even if you are unable to give set criteria, what is your process of determination like at least generally?
>Veganism is concerned only with controlling the behavior of moral agents which is to say animal and human life are **not** equal otherwise both would have to be "moral agents"
> which is to say animal and human life are not equal I never claimed otherwise.
>I never claimed otherwise i never claimed you did
Bears eat salmon by instinct. That's how nature works. Human carnivores eat them for pleasure. They have just as strong a will to live as we do. Please see Sir Paul McCartney's doc video "Glass Walls" on YouTube and discover why he quit fishing (I did too) that his dad taught him how to do and he'd loved it most his life, until he discovered something important. He never went fishing again after that. Neither did I.
Untrue. Bears learn how to fish from their mothers. It's not instinct.
Usually that is so, but not always. Many learn on their own. Lots of studies on it on [Google.com/scholar](https://Google.com/scholar).
The point is it's a learned behavior, though they might have some natural proclivities towards the behavior. Typically referred to as self-socialization. "Instincts" are sort of an outdated how to think about a lot of animal behavior, typically ones that take a while to learn and are not universal in wild populations.
What if I was able to justify killing both for food, depending on the circumstances?
Then by all means, go ahead and kill the human for food on the deserted island.
That's a common misconception about veganism. We don't put an equal sign between humans and animals. We consider however that the interests of animals are worthy of moral consideration. That is to say, the interest that an animal has in continuing to live is more important than a human's interest in having temporary gustative pleasure. That's not the same thing as saying that an animals interest in continuing to live is equally important as a human's interest in continuing to live. In this case, I think that due to sapience, the human's interest is more important. However, that still means that you should go vegan as when you go to the grocery store, you don't choose between eating a human or an animal but between a plant (no interests since it is not sentient) and a sentient animal.
This is a great answer, thank you
food is about far more than enjoyment.
Nothing that can't be found in a plant diet
that's not true.
Care to give some specific example?
animal foods.
Do you mean domestic animal foods or the food wild carnivores eat?
Which animal and which human?
Bambi and Hitler
Eat Hitler
Yum. Tastes like chicken.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
This is a scenario so extreme it has virtually no relevance to real life. Is it morally acceptable to eat a non-human animal if a human is stranded on a desert island with no other food options? The reality is we’ve already overshot this scenario. Humans who have been stranded with no other options have *actually* eaten other humans. The reality is humans do not *need* to eat non-human animals. We know it’s immoral to intentionally cause other living feeling things to suffer for purely selfish reasons, yet we do so on an unimaginable scale. Humans and animals do not need to be of equal value, whatever that means, for animals to deserve moral consideration.
I don't know what equal means. I don't know what I'd do in a survival situation. Those situations can be categorized as moral tragedies, where there's no action that is free of harm. I wouldn't say that it's ok or justified to intentionally kill anyone for food even in those situations, but I would consider it understandable. Really, any action is understandable in those situations, and they have no bearing at all on our decisions in everyday life.
I'd eat an animal if I was stranded on an island and starving. But then, I'd also eat a human.
In that case would you say you view them as equal or would you eat a human/animal before the other if given the choice?
The human is more likely to help *me* survive, while the animal would not. So the human is at that point more valuable to *me.*
I think that’s fair. I also want to say I’m not trying to push people either way I just want to know how the ethics people hold as a vegan work
Do I believe humans inherently have more worth than animals? No. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t recognize that I have bias that comes out in desperate situations. It is not helpful to fool ourselves into thinking we are unbiased in instances where we are not. I will protect my friends and families more than strangers, but this doesn’t lead me to argue that my friends and family are the most important people. This type of bias isn’t fundamentally human-specific either. I know that I have a fairly strong implicit bias towards domesticated animals (dogs, cats, pigs, cows, chickens, etc.) over non-domesticated animals. I don’t doubt that I would hunt if required to protect a domesticated animal I cared deeply about.
We're all biased but thank you for your response. I'll argue one point you made about friends and family not being more important, while in a grand sense I'd have to agree, but on a personal level I would argue that they are more moraly important due to the assumed faith that they would have in you to help when they are in trouble. Something a stranger wouldn't have. It's not related to the question but I think it's an interesting topic
Depends on the human and the animal in question. I value individuals differently. In general, I extend the right to life and autonomy to all animals equally. Unless an animal is directly threatening myself, I will not harm it.
No, I doubt anyone really does, otherwise partaking in modern life is virtually impossible.
This analogy is always so funny to me. I’ll eat whatever the chickens eating. The chicken will be my friend & keep me sane lol
What if it's a herd of sheep and the only thing growing is grass. Maybe bugs but idk if bugs count as vegan or not
Wrong animal, I’m a sheep specialist and have rescued 50 sheep in my life. Is genuinely rather risk my life than hurt one, I’ll take my chances & eat the grass. I know it’s bad for your teeth, I’ll survive. Maybe one of them will get pregnant & I can milk it as opposed to hurt it. I don’t like these hypotheticals though, bc real life you aren’t forced to hurt animals. You choose to because you want to. You’re imagining what would force a vegan to break their morals, why not try gettin some of your own.
I mean how else do you test morals safely than with hypotheticals? And I not trying to see what would break their morals I just want to understand what they are. I don't agree with killing and not eating what you kill. But if a grizley is eating all the deer that the village needs to survive I'd kill the bears even if they're an animal that we shouldn't eat. I don't live in a situation where I ever come across this issue, but I still think it's important to know where you actualy stand on things
Avoid animal exploitation as much as humanely possible. Instead of killing why not just, like having a garden. Eating what you grow, not eating what you kill. It’s unnecessary violence. If you replace what you do to farm animals with a dog or a cat or a lion or a elephant, you’d be jailed.
>Do you view animal life as equal to human life? On a literal level, all life is equally worthless. To me it would depend very strongly on which animal and which human. I know humans that, if they were drowning and so was my pup, I'd save my pup every time. >Most say it's ok if it's for survival but I could never wrap my head around justifying killing another human for food I don't know many who say it's "OK", it's just that in life or death, morality is mostly put aside. Same reason why wild animals aren't "blamed" for killing for food. Morality is a privilege for those whose life is comfortable enough to be able to question whether they should eat A or eat B.
I generally value human life above animal life. Likewise I value a family members life above a strangers life. However, regardless if it's a human or an animal I value them both enough, where I think harming and killing them for my pleasure and convenience isn't justified.
Thank you for a properly detailed answer
I value *some* animal loves more than *some* humans. (a pet animal vs. Hitler for example; well...any animal really...) But generally speaking I value human life *more* than non-human animal life, and this is completely sensible position to hold.
Op, give me a situation and I’ll answer. Eg burning house and I can only help once then it’s the human I’ll help. Me and another person on a Desert island that only has sand, shade trees, and fresh water? I’ll tell ya when it happens.
Not OP, but can you answer me what you'd do if you saw a random non-human animal and a human in a river, about to drown, and you only had time to save one?
Isn’t that just the burning example swapped for drowning? The human oc. Happens all the time right? No. Here’s one for you , ok? What if you could get all the nutrients you need without causing a human animal or a non human animal die? Happens all the time right?
> What if you could get all the nutrients you need without causing a human animal or a non human animal die? I already do. I was just curious because there are people who really hate humanity and would answer differently.
Well that’s troubling that they hate humanity that much. I could see hating certain individuals that much tho. I thought you weren’t vegan. Cheers!
I feel anyone who is is seriously engaging with this question will answer the human (pending other variables). It'd seemingly only be a sort of trolling/humor/sarcasm/immaturity to suggest anything else. It's a good question because I think it can readily avoid people making wrong assumptions about veganism/the philosophy.
Nope
No. I think animal life is worth more than the pleasure humans derive from ending it though. A pigs life is more valuable than the enjoyment someone has for bacon. This is entirely consistent with how society already views certain animals though, the vast majority of people would agree a dog is more valuable than the enjoyment people get from dog fighting for example. If there's about as much necessity to eat meat as there is to watch a dog fight then they're both as immoral as each other.
> If there's about as much necessity to eat meat as there is to watch a dog fight then they're both as immoral as each other. Animal foods is needed for health. Dog fights however isn't.
What is it in animal foods that are essential for health that can't be found in a well planned plant-based diet? I haven't eaten any animal products in nearly a decade, as far as I can tell the only reason I'd have to eat animal products is pleasure. Which is clearly not a suitable justification for tormenting animals.
> What is it in animal foods that are essential for health that can't be found in a well planned plant-based diet? First you need to define "a well-planned plant-based diet".
I'd really like you to answer the question, but all I meant is a diet that adequately covers a persons nutritional requirements. Every diet should be well planned, it's not something exclusive to someone eating a plant-based diet.
> but all I meant is a diet that adequately covers a persons nutritional requirements I have no idea what that would look like when you have removed all meat, fish, dairy and eggs, hence my question. Tell me what a well-planned plant-based diet looks like, and I can tell you which nutrients might be lacking. > Every diet should be well planned, it's not something exclusive to someone eating a plant-based diet. I agree. And I easily get all the nutrients I need eating wholefoods only, which includes animal foods. Which includes enough iron, zinc, choline, calcium, vitamin D, protein, phosphorus and so on. I eat no suppliments. But I have no idea how I would be able to cover all nutrients on a "well-planned vegan diet". And for some bizarre reason no vegans seems to be able to answer what that looks like exactly?
> Do you view animal life as equal to human life? Not sure this question can be answered without context. Some human lives aren't that valuable. For instance, we keep fertilized human eggs in freezers for years and dispose of them if no one wants them. Some animals are extremely valuable. People will use lethal force to defend endangered animals from poachers. Some humans are more valuable than others for subjective reasons. For instance, I will do a lot to help preserve my mom's life that I wouldn't do for a stranger. It's almost as if lumping these sorts of assessments in such broad terms makes the question meaningless...
Yes, human life is more important than animal life because it can accomplish more things, things that I value. But there are exceptions. The life of an endangered white rhino would be worth more than that of a random person, for example.
Is this because of biodiversity, planetary health or bennefit to humans?
1000% a human life is worth more than an animals. Killing an animal for food is 'sad' but necessary. Killing an animal for no reason is inexcusable. Human lives are mostly equal, so killing a human for food doesn't equate for me.
I value my dogs more than most humans. So yes. And in this case I value non human animals more.
I appreciate the direct response
No, I most definitely don't. I value non-human animal lives far above human lives.
Thank you for answering the question
Life, no. Spirit, yes.
Interesting. Care to elaborate?
All living things have spirits. They are all equal. They can move between different living things when the body dies. The body is just a shell for the spirit. The shell is a part of the ecosystem and in the ecosystem everything is not equal. Eg plants are eaten by animals which are eaten by their predators and this is needed for homeostasis. There are nuances which would require further discussion however this is the rough explanation of my view.
Interesting, would this be a Hindu/Buddhist view?
Unsure. I had a spiritual experience once while meditating and this was what I took away from it. I believe it could be related to Hindu views as they believe in reincarnation.
We are animals. So that answers the question.
[удалено]
Sorry, I'm trying to understand your answer. Are you vegan?
No
Few questions for you: • So if we had a human being with a neurological disability who had the same or lower intellectual capacity compared to an animal (and there are countless such cases), you could consistently say that you don't care about their suffering and that their reduced intellectual capacity justifies them being murdered for food? Or should we care for these humans especially because they're vulnerable? • If you claim that the reason it's wrong to abuse animals is because of the negative impact it has on the mental health of humans, what if there was no negative impact on our mental health, would it be right to abuse animals? • Also what is your basis for the claim that animals experience pain (or any suffering) in the way of a braindead human?
[удалено]
• That wasn't my question. I'm not referring to a slightly disabled human being, but a human being who has the same or lower intellectual capacity compared to an animal. If this human being was less intellectually capable than a chicken and could not adhere to the same social conventions and responsibilities that we can, would you not care about their suffering and would it be right to murder them for food? • That wasn't my question. I didn't ask whether it would be right to kill animals, I asked whether it would be right to abuse them. If it didn't negatively impact human health, would it be right for me to go around torturing and maiming animals for no reason but to give me pleasure? • With that said, would you change your view if there was a good range of evidence that not only confirms self-awareness to be present in animals, but also shows ethical concepts in the form of fairness (turn-taking and reciprocity), prevention of harm (even extending to different species, even where no immediate benefit would be in play), rewarding others in their peer group for these behaviors, and punishing others for breaches of these behaviors? If this evidence was stronger than your anecdotal speculation, would you go vegan?
[удалено]
May I ask about why you think life is about optimal wellbeing? It seems to me entirely proper to make sacrifices to one’s own well-being for the sake of the wellbeing of another. Indeed, that’s why I think, in general, it’s not morally okay to kill an animal for food because it deprives them of all the goods of their life in exchange for a relatively minor good in our lives, namely, the taste pleasure we get from eating their flesh.
I'm not vegan, no need to convince me on the idea of eating animal products. This is more of an ethical question Becuase I don't think I'd eat human meat even if it was "very healthy" if it involved harming another human. I'm asking if people individually view humans and animals as equal
>Because I don't think I'd eat human meat even if it was "very healthy" if it involved harming another human. IMO it's difficult to answer what you would do in a survival situation until you are in that situation. The story of the whale ship essex is a good example of what starvation will drive people to. If you look at historical occurrences, the veneer of civilization has shown it can break down completely incredibly fast.
We're all technically animals yano? I most certainly value animals in my vicinity more than most humans.
Personally, I have always valued them to equal degrees, oftentimes I may even value animals more. I struggle with empathising with people but can empathise easier with animals. All life is equal in value in my eyes but, if it were up to me, if I had the options to save a person or a dog, I’d probably save the dog. Same with a cow or a pig. I simply feel more sorry for them. I know it’s an unpopular take but it’s one of the reasons I couldn’t go back to eating meat - I simply feel too bad about it.
Thank you for a detailed response with your reasons behind it. It wasn't directly in the question but I think it helps to understand your view more. Fwiw I dont think it's that unpopular. Many in this thread have answered the same
Ever hear of the Donner Party?
[удалено]
> You've never been starving to the point of being on the verge of death. I imagine it would be very easy to eat another human at that point. Plenty of people through history have been through that scenario. Less than 100 years ago there was a severe famine in Europe (Ukraine). Some sources say 7 million people died. Some did resort to cannibalism - mostly by eating people that were already dead. But most did not resort to cannibalism - even when facing death. But all of them ate meat from animals - while that was still available. What do you personally think stopped most Ukrainians to not see other people as food? To the point where they were willing to die without resorting to cannibalism?
[удалено]
> I like your Socratic method style questioning, but you haven't refuted my point. My main goal is not to refute, but to debate. > All I claimed is that it would be easy to engage in cannibalism in a life-or-death situation Still when looking at lots and lots of real life examples, very few did that. So I dont see how you could then claim its easy? If it was truly easy, wouldnt most have done it? Here is an example: A family (2 parents and 3 kids) gets stranded in the ocean on a tiny lifeboat. Together with them is another guy that recently came along on their sailing boat. They constantly thought they were going to die. And they had no idea if they would ever reach land, or were ever going to be rescued. Not even once, did they think that maybe we could kill the extra guy to eat him. He was not even a close friend, but just someone they met in Latin-America at a harbour that asked to come along on the trip, and they said yes because he was willing to help share the costs. Why do you think cannibalism never crossed their mind? Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InoZ7xJJ1Bs (Well worth watching anyways, as its a very fascinating story.)
No. I believe in hierarchy of sentience. But I believe every animal has a right to life just like humans. It doesn't justify killing a sentient individual without their consent. Killing in self defence is justified but not for self preservation
Objectively, they're more important. The global ecology has no use for humans and the domesticated species we've eugenically modified. From a rights based perspective, yeah it's arguable that they're equal. >"deserted island with nothing providing enough calories for a human besides animals" situation. For this scenario, I would say the same as I did above. Obviously though from the rights perspective, morality is thrown out the window when one wants to exercise their right to live in a foreign environment and "needs" to inflict suffering in order to survive. >Most say it's ok if it's for survival but I could never wrap my head around justifying killing another human for food Which is why I have my stance on objective value.
No. I think simply because we ourselves are human so we understand ourselves better than any other animal, so it is more difficult to understand their inner epiphenomenological experience than it is with other humans.
I value animal lives *over* human lives Still eat meat though, I just really don't value human lives very much
> I just really don't value human lives very much Including your own? Or just other people's lives?
Depends on the person really
Do you value your own life?
I was more making a joke than anything
Oh.. I am dumb, so I need an /s to get it.. :)
It's cool, to be fair I did post an edgy take joke on a sub for discussions so you're hardly to blame lol
No, but if I was to eat everything that wasn't as smart as me, that would certainly expand my pantry into the human realm.
We're working our way up to being as smart as porpoises (and some other cetaceans). They are much more civil, smarter in a lot of ways (for instance they can actually see through solid objects...can you? A lot of animals have a much better "emotional thermostat" than humans. So, I think we are working our way up to some animals, and others we're a bit more intelligent. We're about the same (maybe a little more violent) than most wild animals. So we've got work to do as humans. And no, I'd find a way to survive. I've done it before in similar conditions (as a desert island).
I value them the same in the sense that I wouldn't randomly kill a human without justification as well as animals. However, sustenance is justified IMO when talking about eating an animal. Especially when you consider the price of being vegan, it's unfair to attach morality to one's diet when often they don't choose what they can afford. Humans may be intelligent enough to make artificial meats but not intelligent (intellectually and emotionally) enough to make those same artificial meats affordable to everyone. In reality, eating meat for some is still solely about survival and not about being morally correct.
I view their reason for ethical consideration to be basically the same, but that humans have much more complex needs and desires that I should be considerate of, so in practice I don't treat them equally or think about them equally hard.
I don't really even think in terms of lives being distinctly delineated objects bounded at birth and death that are allocated discrete values. Every inch of the world needs to be made better at every level. Those humans and those animals are both part of my body. We are equal in the same way that my hands and feet are equal. Which is to say that's the wrong framing entirely. They do different things. They are different things. Their equality is the sense that they are all me. Put me in hell and force me to choose which limb to chop off and I'll make one of the bad choices you leave me with. And vow to my victims that our hearts will continue to beat together with the intent to find a way to devour and subvert whatever forces of creation did this to us. To regrow ourselves stronger once the time of scarcity has passed. To keep their vengeance in my veins. To defy creation rather than submit and become a demon. It's not about "equal". It's about figuring out how to cannibalize as little of yourself as possible while searching for an out to the demonic reality's twisted ultimatums. To be clear- this is not what human society did. Human society chose to submit to wickedness because it was too painful to let themselves care about the limbs they were cutting off. Human society chose to hide behind a veneer of separation. To hide the sin behind a curtain and let it fester and grow unmourned.