Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[Athos]

The parentheses were there to denote that there might be relevant factors other than the intensity and duration of pain that might be harmful for the individual. For example the pain might also impose an opportunity cost on the individual experiencing the pain that make it all things considered worse than the same amount of pain of another individual who does not also experience a compariable opportunity cost.

E.g person A is a professional athlete who gets a knee injury. They cannot perform competitively as a result.

Person B is not a professional athlete who gets the same injury, but their career is not adversely impacted in the same way.

Although both experience the same quantity of suffering, person B is harmed more because of the additional opportunity cost they suffer. But species is not of direct relevance to this point.

No, I understand that. Which I why I edited. But your post doesn't address that edit; whether (and why) any moral imperative is species-blind?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

No, I understand that. Which I why I edited. But your post doesn't address that edit; whether (and why) any moral imperative is species-blind?

I'll turn the question on you: why should all moral imperatives be species exclusive?

 

[mrs quoad]

No, I understand that. Which I why I edited. But your post doesn't address that edit; whether (and why) any moral imperative is species-blind?

If it isn't, this appears to suggest that the ultimate goal of veganism (though one that I had not heard of) is vast interventionism in the 'natural' world, and that human cruelty / infliction of harm is only a starting point...?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

If there is a natural hierarchy at what point did humans go off message Casually Red? What are the characteristics of a human natural order? Vegans don't maintain cats have the agency to choose their diet, you're confused.

vegans aren't apex predators though

CR was probably drunk...again.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Any moral imperative extended to other animals is going to need some kind of asterisk. Exceptions apply that don't apply to humans such as killing rats in a hospital. One reason why the idea of animal rights is always going to be problematic.

 

[AnnaKarpik]

I understand that there are likely as many different variations of vegan ethics as there are vegans but I did think that the one shared belief is that people should not use animals. "Use" here meaning consume or make use of anything derived from an animal (this is to leave aside keeping animals for non-food reasons). Even that is, apparently, not a belief shared by all - if you make use of dead creatures for a companion animal, that's a side issue for which vegans have no responsibility despite actually dishing up dead creatures.

This makes no sense to me. Either you have a code of ethics, give yourself and your gang a cool name, tell the rest of world how wrong they are and live by those ethics OR you have a bunch of personal preferences about what you will or won't eat. I think it's the mixing up of the two approaches that bugs me. On the one hand, veganism is a thing, it's us against them, we've got all the moral arguments on our side, we coin insulting terms for people who are not us or who question us. And on the other hand, it's not black and white, people have to make difficult choices which boil down to personal choices.

But if even vegans are prepared to serve dead things up to their (animal) friends what does being vegan mean? What does a vegan future look like?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Any moral imperative extended to other animals is going to need some kind of asterisk. Exceptions apply that don't apply to humans such as killing rats in a hospital. One reason why the idea of animal rights is always going to be problematic.

I think animal rights theory has the tools to account for situations like this. If you are interested, I'd recommend this:

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Specifying the Rights of Animals

Section 11.4 deals with the question of rodents specifically.

I understand that there are likely as many different variations of vegan ethics as there are vegans but I did think that the one shared belief is that people should not use animals. "Use" here meaning consume or make use of anything derived from an animal (this is to leave aside keeping animals for non-food reasons). Even that is, apparently, not a belief shared by all - if you make use of dead creatures for a companion animal, that's a side issue for which vegans have no responsibility despite actually dishing up dead creatures.

This makes no sense to me. Either you have a code of ethics, give yourself and your gang a cool name, tell the rest of world how wrong they are and live by those ethics OR you have a bunch of personal preferences about what you will or won't eat. I think it's the mixing up of the two approaches that bugs me. On the one hand, veganism is a thing, it's us against them, we've got all the moral arguments on our side, we coin insulting terms for people who are not us or who question us. And on the other hand, it's not black and white, people have to make difficult choices which boil down to personal choices.

But if even vegans are prepared to serve dead things up to their (animal) friends what does being vegan mean? What does a vegan future look like?

The Vegan Society define veganism as 'A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose'. Notice the 'as far as is possible and practicable' qualifier. We do not consume animal products because we don't need them, but if we happen to be looking after an animal that requires them to live then one could plausibly make the argument that it's not possible or practicable to avoid them. Now you could make the counter-argument that vegans should not adopt cats at all for that reason - but then you have the situation where cats are languishing in shelters (and being fed meat there anyway) or are killed.

Neither feeding meat to a cat or cats being killed in shelters is a good option for vegans. It then becomes a judgement call about which is the lessor of the two evils. It's absurd however to dismiss the ethical philosophy of veganism because vegans might differ about which of the two evils is the lesser one. All other ethical theories also run into conceptual and practical problems of this kind. Human rights for example, whilst they sound lovely in the abstract, are often very tricky to apply in practical legal context and delineating their scope and content involves taking account of many different factors and competing considerations. One can very easily find disagreement amongst human rights lawyers and activists about the nature of a particular right. Yet would this lead us to reject human rights tout court? I think not, that would be unreasonable, as it is in the vegan context too.

btw in a vegan future this problem would not arise in the first place because we would not be breeding obligate carnivores.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think animal rights theory has the tools to account for situations like this. If you are interested, I'd recommend this:

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Specifying the Rights of Animals

Section 11.4 deals with the question of rodents specifically.
.

It's a deeply thought-out piece, but I'm not convinced. In the case of rats, specifically, I quite like them, think they're cute. But lots of people really don't and their first reaction on seeing one in their house will be to try to bash its brains out. I don't think there is a strong case against this reaction - certainly I know from personal experience that it's not a good idea to tell the person to calm down, it's only a rat.

 

[Athos]

I'll turn the question on you: why should all moral imperatives be species exclusive?

For instance, there's an evolutionary bias towards favouring one's own species.

Why shouldn't they be?

 

[ddraig]

Why everyone should go vegan immediately

typical comments in the comments, just like a lot here

 

[Jeff Robinson]

For instance, there's an evolutionary bias towards favouring one's own species.

Why shouldn't they be?

I see no reason to think that our evolutionary biases are anything like a reliable guide to what's right and wrong. At any rate, whether or not one favours one's own species is a different question to the one you asked me about, which was whether it is equally wrong to equally harm other species in the absence of sufficiently weighty reasons for doing so. You can favour x over y whilst it still being equally wrong to harm x and y. For example, I think its right that a parent favours their child over another child, they should provide the most care and protection for their own child. But its still equally wrong of the parent to inflict the same level of harm on their child or another child.

Why shouldn't they be? Many reasons, but chiefly the lack of any compelling reason that I've heard to the contrary.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's a deeply thought-out piece, but I'm not convinced. In the case of rats, specifically, I quite like them, think they're cute. But lots of people really don't and their first reaction on seeing one in their house will be to try to bash its brains out. I don't think there is a strong case against this reaction - certainly I know from personal experience that it's not a good idea to tell the person to calm down, it's only a rat.

The reason I highlighted the article was because it makes the case that one can be in favour of animal rights whilst also recognising the permissibility of killing rats in some circumstances.

With regard to people's reactions to rats, I think the thought they have is something like this: 'these rats are intruders in my home and not only that, they are carriers of disease and they pose a health threat to me and my family, I'm going to kill them'. Here we are clearly in the realm of self-defence, which I would classify (in some instances at least) as a sufficiently weighty reason to override the obligation not to harm another. We can get in to the specifics of whether the reaction is necessary and proportionate (which the article explores), but its very different to the raising animals for food: these animals pose no threat to us, and indeed only exist because we choose to bring them into existence for food. This makes the harming of them a clearer instance of something that is unjust and wrongful.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Any moral imperative extended to other animals is going to need some kind of asterisk. Exceptions apply that don't apply to humans such as killing rats in a hospital. One reason why the idea of animal rights is always going to be problematic.

tbh, I don't find it problematic at all, in fact the core principles are fairly simple. Don't cause harm to animals unless there is good reason to do so and if it can be avoided. There may be some disagreement as to what constitutes "good reason", however from my perpective, palate preference definitely not one of the reasons.

 

[Athos]

tbh, I don't find it problematic at all, in fact the core principles are fairly simple. Don't cause harm to animals unless there is good reason to do so and if it can be avoided. There may be some disagreement as to what constitutes "good reason", however from my perpective, palate preference definitely not one of the reasons.

Yes, but you're a fucking idiot.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbh, I don't find it problematic at all, in fact the core principles are fairly simple. Don't cause harm to animals unless there is good reason to do so and if it can be avoided. There may be some disagreement as to what constitutes "good reason", however from my perpective, palate preference definitely not one of the reasons.

Framing the discussion in terms of rights rather than welfare, I think it does get tricky. It's basically saying 'you have the right to live except where your living hurts our (human) interests'. It's not really much of a right if it's contingent like that. In fact, it isn't really a right at all.

 

[Athos]

Why shouldn't they be? Many reasons, but chiefly the lack of any compelling reason that I've heard to the contrary.

It doesn't have to be compelling in isolation, just relative to the counter position. My reason is the pleasure I derive. You've offered no reasons why I ought not harm other species (beyond an absence of reasons to do so).

Though in fairness, I appreciate that you're not trying to persuade me not to, and that you've framed what you said in terms of reasons you perceive; maybe you just didn't enjoy meat as much as I do.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Framing the discussion in terms of rights rather than welfare, I think it does get tricky. It's basically saying 'you have the right to live except where your living hurts our (human) interests'. It's not really much of a right if it's contingent like that. In fact, it isn't really a right at all.

tbh, I have no idea where you are going with this. You appear to be dragging this into a semantic and pedantic quagmire. I'm happy to stick with how I framed it until I see something that improves on that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbh, I have no idea where you are going with this. You appear to be dragging this into a semantic and pedantic quagmire. I'm happy to stick with how I framed it until I see something that improves on that.

I'm going where the discussion has been going. Quite a few people wish to speak seriously and in detail about the concept of animal rights. From Jeremy Bentham onwards, this has been an idea put out there, one that is attractive to many people, and there are serious questions as to how it can work in practice.

 

[LDC]

I've always found this the most interesting and convincing read on the subject of animal liberation http://thesparrowsnest.org.uk/collections/public_archive/PAR0067.pdf

Good review here (although almost as long as the pamphlet) Beasts of Burden: Capitalism - Animals - Communism (Do or Die)

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I'm going where the discussion has been going. Quite a few people wish to speak seriously and in detail about the concept of animal rights. From Jeremy Bentham onwards, this has been an idea put out there, one that is attractive to many people, and there are serious questions as to how it can work in practice.

Fair enough, I'll leave you to it, but I don't believe that it is anywhere near as problematic as you are making it out to be.

 

[mojo pixy]

On what exactly is/are animal rights based though? Just sentience, or is there more to it than that?
Or is it enough to be born / hatched to gain the right to remain alive / free from suffering?

And then, what about creatures we deem non-sentient?

Wherever you fall along the spectrum between Everything living has the right to stay that way without suffering and Only humans have special rights because humans are better than the rest, there are huge issues with Animal Rights, and they're there from the word go.

I was basically radicalised by Animal Rights, I'm not detailing the criminal activity I engaged in for the cause (have a listen to This is the ALF by Conflict though) ... I still support animal rights, and I'm definitely near the Everything extreme of my little spectrum there, but experience has taught me that it is an extreme view, and it's unlikely most of humanity will ever come to share it. I have to admit, I try not to worry too much about that. Just do what I can where I can (and no criminal activity any more, officer).

For me, if someone viscerally cares about animal rights and disrupting the murderous (let's say) food chain of the meat industry, forget trying to convince people because most people just don't care. It turns into a ruck, every time, and is IMO counter productive.

Do direct action and (probably best to) keep quiet about it.
Again, I urge a listen to the Conflict tune. Better still, just read the lyrics.
And have fun

 

[mojo pixy]

Anger is only useful when it's directed properly .. so there, ''Angry Vegans''.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It doesn't have to be compelling in isolation, just relative to the counter position. My reason is the pleasure I derive. You've offered no reasons why I ought not harm other species (beyond an absence of reasons to do so).

(1) Do you think it's acceptable to inflict harm on humans if you derive pleasure from doing so? If not what is it that distinguishes humans from the other animals that makes it wrong in the former case but not the later?

(2) Do you think it's ever wrong to inflict suffering on the other animals for reasons of pleasure? Do you, for example, think it's okay to torture elephants into performing circus tricks if people enjoy watching them? And if you do think the later is wrong, by what criteria do you distinguish acceptable inflicting of suffering on animals for pleasure from unacceptable inflicting of suffering on animals for pleasure?

 

[ddraig]

even the wanna be cockney wanker is getting in on it!! yo Spymaster

 

[mrs quoad]

(1) Do you think it's acceptable to inflict harm on humans if you derive pleasure from doing so? If not what is it that distinguishes humans from the other animals that makes it wrong in the former case but not the later?

(2) Do you think it's ever wrong to inflict suffering on the other animals for reasons of pleasure? Do you, for example, think it's okay to torture elephants into performing circus tricks if people enjoy watching them? And if you do think the later is wrong, by what criteria do you distinguish acceptable inflicting of suffering on animals for pleasure from unacceptable inflicting of suffering on animals for pleasure?

Do you think it's acceptable for other animals to inflict harm on other animals, if that harm is avoidable or only for pleasure?

I ask, because - as noted above - the single harm principle (that I think you) set out above seems to imply a mandate for mass intervention in the "natural" world, quite apart from human behaviour.

 

[Athos]

(1) Do you think it's acceptable to inflict harm on humans if you derive pleasure from doing so? If not what is it that distinguishes humans from the other animals that makes it wrong in the former case but not the later?

(2) Do you think it's ever wrong to inflict suffering on the other animals for reasons of pleasure? Do you, for example, think it's okay to torture elephants into performing circus tricks if people enjoy watching them? And if you do think the later is wrong, by what criteria do you distinguish acceptable inflicting of suffering on animals for pleasure from unacceptable inflicting of suffering on animals for pleasure?

1. No. Reciprocity.
2. I'll have to think about.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

The point that you are at pains to miss is that it makes no difference to a meat animal who eats it at the end of its life.

lol @ "at pains to miss". There was no pain involved my dear. If your English is as good as you appear to believe, then you would have been able to see for yourself that what you wrote could be interpreted in several ways. I assumed that you were saying that keeping an animal for a pet was equivalent to keeping an animal for food, which I believe was a better fit for what was being discussed at the time. Now what you're claiming that you actually meant was that killing an animal to feed a pet is the equivalent to killing an animal to feed ourselves. Sorry but that was not the obvious interpretation that you're not making it out to be.

If you buy meat you are supporting the meat industry.
If I paraphrase you might get it; I see no difference between you eating meat and you purchasing meat so that your cat can eat it. And by difference, as you assuredly need that pointing out too, I mean that the animals killed for food will not be treated any better or worse because of the end-user's species.

Well I've already covered this in an answer that I gave earlier. It is a dilemma faced by some vegans and it is dealt with in different ways. The one major difference as far as I'm concerned is that cats are obligate carnivores and humans are not, but that aside, this type of questioning appears to be aimed more at finding fault than trying to understand. The majority of the critics here are not remotely interested in the subject and are just here to troll and make mischief hence the nitpicking and focus on peripheral non issues. My choices and purchasing decisions end up supporting all sorts of things that I'd rather not, for example the taxes I paid supported Blairs war in Iraq. Choosing to not eat meat or to use animal products is a choice that I can make that is doable, practical and is beneficial on many levels. The fact that only a small percentage of people participate in this practice is outweighed by the fact that I think it's the right thing to do. If other folks disagree then that's up to them.

You seem to be saying that the the manner of a pet's death is important rather than the fact of it. Why does that not apply to meat animals?

I have no idea what you're getting at now. All animals die. Meat animals die well before their time and are killed (some might even dare to say "murdered"). Humans and their pets are sometimes murdered but usually live out their natural lifespan unless it's cut short by illness or accident.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

even the wanna be cockney wanker is getting in on it!! yo Spymaster

Over a decade after the famous "silencer of the lamb" episode on live telly. I think a lot of what he said in that clip made sense. He was chatting to the same man that was on the BBC Victoria Derbyshire show recently and I believe JO paid for Tim. Full clip here...



Jamie Oliver on vegans: 'They hate me'

...and a response from some real proper absolutely fuming "angry" hippie vegan fundamentalist militant terrorists...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My problem, I know, but my prejudices are hard to suppress when I'm confronted by people who smile too much and wear tie-dyed 'I'm vegan' t-shirts.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

My problem, I know, but my prejudices are hard to suppress when I'm confronted by people who smile too much and wear tie-dyed 'I'm vegan' t-shirts.

lol, that's more of a response that I would expect from CR and not somebody who's supposedly a thinker.
You're clearly not really interested in veganism and that's fair enough, whatever floats your boat. If you'd rather focus on trivialities like tie dyes and smiles and not what is being said that's rather immature and childish imo.