Hi Rareform and welcome to VeggieBoards.
As a vegan, I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of bringing non-human animals into existence for human "benefits".
That's about it really.
Lv
Ethics of veganism
Hello, I was vegetarian for some years, before realizing that it was morally inconsistent(And I either would have to skip all animal products or just consume them all). I stoped being vegetarian because of that. Now I am interested in an ethical part of veganism.
One of the aims of ethical veganism is the non existence of the farm animals. But is a short happy live on a farm before being slaughtered(without expecting it) really worse than not existing at all?
To take this argument even further, is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist at all?
One of the aims of ethical veganism is the non existence of the farm animals. But is a short happy live on a farm before being slaughtered(without expecting it) really worse than not existing at all?
To take this argument even further, is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist at all?
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
As a vegan, I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of bringing non-human animals into existence for human "benefits".
That's about it really.
Lv
For me, the ethics of veganism are very closely tied to bodily and personal autonomy. I tend to lean in a conservative direction. Where most people would claim that I should want to protect a human's right to animal property, I extend these beliefs to animals. Self-governance for animals is not a radical idea because their existence does not actually depend on interaction with human nations except for how we use their habitat, which is in our interest to protect, whether or not we actually do. To suggest that animal rights and abolitionism are not practical frames animal social and biological needs as the same as human's and this viewpoint is ridiculous.
Very few animals get short, happy lives on farms these days. In fact, hardly any, compared to the huge numbers of animals that live their whole lives trapped in the factory farming industry. In factory farming, absolutely nothing is natural or happy - the animals are commodities, and the bottom line is king. Male chicks are often ground up alive a day or two after hatching, baby cows are immediately separated from their dairy cow mothers - the males forced to languish in veal crates, sick and undernourished, until they are killed in a few weeks. Baby pigs routinely have their tails cut off and their teeth pulled out without anesthesia. I honestly think nonexistence would be far superior to living within the confines of factory farming.
So you are suggesting nonexistence is a harmful thing? Harmful to ... whom? Or what? And how? That doesn't make one lick of sense. The only way I can see to make that stance intelligible at all is to assume that disembodied souls float around waiting for a physical body to inhabit. Maybe that's an interesting topic for theoretical metaphysics, but me, I'm a flesh-and-blood kind of guy much more interested in dealing with flesh-and-blood kinds of issues.is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist all?
" is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist at all?"
Yes, it's worse. Why would anyone want to live a life filled with pain and misery however long or short it was?
Better not to have been born at all than live in factory farm conditions imo.
Yes, it's worse. Why would anyone want to live a life filled with pain and misery however long or short it was?
Better not to have been born at all than live in factory farm conditions imo.
Everyone, everything does not exist before and after they exist. Non existance is probably more reliable and natural than existance. A woman would have litters of millions of childeren if there was not fierce competition for a few months in a womb. Female cows are impregnated by a guy with a syringe full of sperm. Most female farm animals never even see a male of their kind. There would certainly not be a successful birth for every insemination in a natural state. Even in plants there is no gaurentee that seeds will fall in an area where life is even possible. An orchid seed pod contains billions of microscopic seeds. Hardly any will make it to seedling stage.
The udders of a female dairy cow would make it difficult to exist in the wild. In a natural state, in breeds of wild cows, cow udders are much smaller. Look at the udders of a female long horn cow. What about a horse or a deer or another animal not engineered by man for a particular use. Chickens with breasts so big they topple over? These animals, sad to say, are doomed by man, and would not make it in the wild.
Existing does not mean they have a choice of being a product or being free. In this case I would think that not existing would be better than existing. Believe me, if genetisists could create a boneles chicken who plucks its own feathers and jumps in a box, they shure as heck would.
Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk
The udders of a female dairy cow would make it difficult to exist in the wild. In a natural state, in breeds of wild cows, cow udders are much smaller. Look at the udders of a female long horn cow. What about a horse or a deer or another animal not engineered by man for a particular use. Chickens with breasts so big they topple over? These animals, sad to say, are doomed by man, and would not make it in the wild.
Existing does not mean they have a choice of being a product or being free. In this case I would think that not existing would be better than existing. Believe me, if genetisists could create a boneles chicken who plucks its own feathers and jumps in a box, they shure as heck would.
Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk
All animals should have the ability to breed and exist naturally. That would mean X number of pigs, sheep, cows, etc. existing in a totally natural environment. That could only happen if humans stopped exploiting animals. IOW, all factory farms, or CAFOs, (concentrated animal feeding operations), would cease to exist. Animals would roam free (maybe on farms, etc), and exist naturally.....they would never be eaten. (That would be in a perfect World....and doesn't have a real chance of occurring).Hello, I was vegetarian for some years, before realizing that it was morally inconsistent(And I either would have to skip all animal products or just consume them all). I stoped being vegetarian because of that. Now I am interested in an ethical part of veganism.
One of the aims of ethical veganism is the non existence of the farm animals. But is a short happy live on a farm before being slaughtered(without expecting it) really worse than not existing at all?
To take this argument even further, is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist at all?
The "right number" of animals would exist, according to the laws of nature. "Karma" would determine the number of animals at any one time. I believe animals have souls, like humans, and are governed by karma. Respecting animals is of the utmost importance, since they have a soul, and deserve our respect.
This makes no sense to me. The way I see it, if you have a moral problem with, let's say, dogs and cats being abused, then it's more morally consistent to be a vegetarian than an omnivore and more morally consistent to be a vegan than a vegetarian. By not eating meat you reduced the amount that you were contributing to the problem even if you weren't eliminating it completely. Thinking of it in this sort of all or nothing way implies that anyone who's not a perfect vegan should be out buying fur coats, eating veal, attending rodeos and betting on dog fights.Hello, I was vegetarian for some years, before realizing that it was morally inconsistent(And I either would have to skip all animal products or just consume them all). I stoped being vegetarian because of that.
Happy? Maybe some farm animals have happy lives. Most are brutally abused. And even the ones who get to experience a fair amount of happiness are still subjected to unnecessary abuse. The whole 'existence is better than non-existence and there would be no reason for you to exist if we couldn't abuse you' justification for animal abuse is nuts to me. Apply it to a human child or even a dog and I doubt many people would think it holds up.Now I am interested in an ethical part of veganism.
One of the aims of ethical veganism is the non existence of the farm animals.
But is a short happy live on a farm before being slaughtered(without expecting it) really worse than not existing at all?
To take this argument even further, is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist at all?
Agreed. Being vegetarian is still reducing your comsumption of animal, even if you are not vegan. You are still having a lower impact than am omni. So giving up vegetarianism because of that seems strange to me. To me if every omni even reduced their meat by 50% that's 50% less demand... that is a lot of animals. Also free range or organic farm animals all end up suffering in the slaughterhouse. They might have had an okay life... compared to other farm animals but they still go to the same slaughterhouse they still feel the same anxiety, and they do see it coming. Most animals can see and hear the slaugher of others well before their time is up. In my opinion these animals were bred for food. They are here because we bred them. I would rather we have no farming for meat and if that means we might only see the odd wild boar or odd mountain goat... thats fine by me. Non existance is surely better than abuse and slaughter. Its like a human family of abusers having 10 plus children who abuse them and exploit them... I would say.. those parents should never have had children in the first place. To humans... we should never have had animals for meat in the first place.
Cows descend from animals now extinct (aurochs) that could live in the wild. But cows today cannot. They have some cousins (different species, same genus) that can -- water buffalo, American bison, yaks, but not cattle. There are no wild cattle herds anymore, anywhere. They're not equipped to survive predation or severe climate or scant resources. So it's good to realize that for some species, freedom from being brought into existence for human benefit is species extinction. Not arguing that species extinction is necessarily a bad thing, but you're talking about either petting zoos or every last one of them will die without leaving descendants once we stop breeding them. Good to be clear-eyed about what we endorse.
Extinction is more natural than breeding to be killed to eat, some might say anyway.
In this, I think, is an important ethical distinction, namely:One of the aims of ethical veganism is the non existence of the farm animals. But is a short happy live on a farm before being slaughtered(without expecting it) really worse than not existing at all?
To take this argument even further, is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist at all?
1.) Whether we have the right to inflict suffering on animals for our needs
2.) Whether we have the right to kill an animal for our needs
These are two separate issues and one could disagree with #1 but agree with #2. While the meat you're going to find in the grocery store involves both issues they are, in principle, separate issues as you could humanely raise animals for meat. The problem with so called "happy meat", beyond whether you agree or disagree with #2, is that it isn't economic in an industrial country. Such meat would be very expensive and couldn't by any means meet current demand for meat. As such, "happy meat" is usually mentioned as a trojan horse for factory farmed industrial meat.
Yes. I think it would be a case of reverting the situation to how it was before humankind started meddling with the animal kingdom ie breeding.Extinction is more natural than breeding to be killed to eat, some might say anyway.
How people would miss artificially bred species if they became extinct. Or more appropriately, how people would miss the flesh, milk, skin, by-products etc of those extinct creatures...
Agreed.. how people would miss those broiler chickens!Yes. I think it would be a case of reverting the situation to how it was before humankind started meddling with the animal kingdom ie breeding.
How people would miss artificially bred species if they became extinct. Or more appropriately, how people would miss the flesh, milk, skin, by-products etc of those extinct creatures...
This question can only be asked, and also be answered, if both the questioner and answerer are still accepting the idea that animals are commodities and can be the property of humans to do more or less what they want to do with them, according to the laws of the land which vary from time to time but which never abolish the statute of property of the animals.One of the aims of ethical veganism is the non existence of the farm animals. But is a short happy live on a farm before being slaughtered(without expecting it) really worse than not existing at all?
To take this argument even further, is even short live with cruelty involved in it like factory farming worse for the animal than not to exist at all?
Which means that I, and people who believe in animal equality and animal liberation, are unable to even attempt a response to your question, as it would imply that we still accept somewhere the possibility that animals can be commodities.
Black zebras with white stripes....or white zebras with black stripes.....Cows descend from animals now extinct (aurochs) that could live in the wild. But cows today cannot. They have some cousins (different species, same genus) that can -- water buffalo, American bison, yaks, but not cattle. There are no wild cattle herds anymore, anywhere. They're not equipped to survive predation or severe climate or scant resources. So it's good to realize that for some species, freedom from being brought into existence for human benefit is species extinction. Not arguing that species extinction is necessarily a bad thing, but you're talking about either petting zoos or every last one of them will die without leaving descendants once we stop breeding them. Good to be clear-eyed about what we endorse.
The bottom line is that we need to stop eating animals & take care of the ones that are here now.
Property is a legal notion, as such animals can be human property just as well as any other natural resource. Whether or not animals should be property is different than whether or not animals can be property. If animals couldn't be human property there would be nothing to discuss, its precisely because animals can be property and currently are property that there is an issue at all. That is, we have the issue of whether animals ought to be considered property or not and the ramification of that choice. But the rejection of animals as property would also be a rejection of animals as pets, if animals can't be property then there is no sense in which an animal could be your pet.This question can only be asked, and also be answered, if both the questioner and answerer are still accepting the idea that animals are commodities and can be the property of humans to do more or less what they want to do with them...
I'm not sure why rejecting animals as property, that is rejecting that animals should be property, eliminates one's ability to answer the other posters question.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
VeggieBoards
A forum community dedicated to vegetarian, vegans, and vegetable enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about agriculture, preparation, cooking, recipes, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Magicinepharma
4 Replies
CaptainTrollge
4 Replies
Jacky_11
3 Replies
Recommended Communities
