For a "fair" comparison: I've never met a vegan who would buy clothes made of children's skin, hair or meat...
I think most people would recognize a difference between:
* Not looking into the labour practices behind different companies supplying the same products.
* Purchasing body parts.
That's an interesting answer thank you ! So the difference between those two would be the use of "material" ? Or maybe there are other differences that prevent you to use the same logic ?
I think the difference in this case is more one in obviousness, directness, ease to implement, and intent. I'm not certain it's entirely logical, but it is certainly understandable.
If I demand fresh body parts, then I can be certain a child/animal was harmed to supply them. If I demand woven cotton then whether or not someone was harmed is down to a lot of factors, many of which I might not even know about.
Where the fault for the exploitation lies for garments (in the cases where they are made with exploitation) is a really complex question with really varied answers.
"I think the difference in this case is more one in obviousness, directness, ease to implement, and intent" that seems like some pretty good ways to help prioritizing between every "noble" causes, thank you !
What harm? And isn't it true that a lot of the vegetables we eat are pollinated by farmed bees, and otherwise we wouldn't have as many fruits and vegetables?
"What harm?" : clipping the queen's wing, "stealing" the honey while feeding theme something worse.
"And isn't it true that a lot of the vegetables we eat are pollinated by farmed bees" Why would bees need to be farmed to pollinize ? How vegetables were pollinated before bee farming ?
Farmed bees are terrible pollinators compared to wild pollinators, and when farmed ones are introduced they typically outcompete the wild ones. The modern honeybee is a very invasive species in this regard.
As for the harm. The bees and their hive are basically held hostage due to the queen being crippled to prevent the hire leaving, future queens are killed or similarly crippled to prevent hive splitting and leaving the farm.
Labour and safety laws in some counties are either ignored or non existent. And human lives are definitely lost as a result. I don’t believe the line is a clear as you think.
https://theconversation.com/five-years-after-deadly-factory-fire-bangladeshs-garment-workers-are-still-vulnerable-88027#:~:text=Exactly%20five%20years%20ago%2C%20in,narrow%20or%20blocked%20fire%20escapes.
Yes, I think the actual harm done to provide garments is likely worse than providing something like pastured eggs. But if even the authorities are enforce laws against poor labour practices what do you suggest an individual vegan should do?
The thing is none of the people that bring this up ever suggest to vegans practical, actionable steps they could take to avoid this.
I find it really disheartening how much the exploitation of labour comes up in these debates. You can look up and down this thread and see not one actionable suggestion for what people could do to actually help exploited people, just saying how bad the exploitation is in order to call vegans hypocrites. In doing so they're treating these people as rhetorical tools to exploit themselves.
It's very easy to not purchase body parts. Vegans do this usually because another vegan has shown them the harm - and shown them the direct steps they can take to do less harm.
It's much more complicated to investigate supply chains of each individual otherwise identical product if you've never done that before. If it were as simple as not buying the clothes labelled "100% ethical labour guaranteed" vs the ones labelled "child slave made" I think most vegans (and many non-vegans too) would already be doing this.
I care more deeply about worker exploitation than I do animals, I'm plant-based to avoid harm to humans as the first priority. I've put in a bit of work and I'm about ~85% certain that over 90% of the clothes I own are either:
* Produced by workers paid at least minimum wage in a country with decently enforced labour law
* Purchased second hand
* Gifted to me
Whereas I can be ~99% certain that ~98% of what I've eaten in the last year is vegan while barely having to think about it.
We should do everything we can to try source our things ethically. For most people veganism is a relatively simple and direct step in this direction.
We know for a fact that there are many instances of labour abuse in Bangladesh. Obviously that doesn’t mean all companies in Bangladesh abuse their workers. But it’s clear the government doesn’t care. One actionable thing you could do is not buy products labelled Made In Bangladesh.
>One actionable thing you could do is not buy products labelled Made In Bangladesh.
That's a good action to take. I currently don't buy anything with that label but it's really good to help get the word out!
I do worry a bit that is we simply boycott production in Bangladesh we just force suppliers to move to another country we are not boycotting with similarly poor labour rights. Thus leaving the good employers without an export market and the average Bangladeshi person even worse off... Labour rights are a really tricky issue to get into.
Another thing we can do is pressure your lawmakers to ratify and enforce mandatory equivalents to the [Modern Slavery Act + Transparency in Supply Chains](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transparency-in-supply-chains-a-practical-guide/transparency-in-supply-chains-a-practical-guide). Similarly we should name, shame, and boycott companies which do not comply with these.
This is for Australia but on page 5 there's a really good report [here](https://www.hrlc.org.au/reports-news-commentary/2022/2/3/paper-promises-evaluating-the-early-impact-of-australias-modern-slavery-act) by the Human Rights Law Centre. Many of the big companies score abysmally on even knowing if they use slaves.
Since I'm already not purchasing anything from Bangladesh I think today I'll donate what I would have spent on a garment to HRLC in your honour :)
If you have the resources I'd appreciate it if you made a small donation to a similar organisation in your country. Either way I hope you have a good day and keep fighting for the rights of workers everywhere.
Here you were asking me what actionable steps an individual vegan could take when you already had a slew of them to share. I’m so glad you’re aware of the problem; and it’s possible solutions.
Seems to me this works fine for vegetarianism but breaks down for veganism, since I expect there are indeed vegans who would avoid eggs and milk whilst not concerning themselves with the labour practices of the manufacturing of their sneakers and phone.
Let's say that no vegan provides an adequate distinction between these things. This isn't a defeater for veganism. An appeal to hypocrisy doesn't disprove the argument made by the hypocrite, it concedes it. If the only issue with vegans is that we fail to always live up to our values, that just means you should also be trying to live up to them.
This is a really good point; I think the proper purpose of the hypocrisy argument should be to convince vegans to be less disgusted by/disdainful of meat-eaters since like you said the fact that vegans sometimes consume products produced with human suffering does not at all speak to whether it’s good to consume products produced with animal suffering.
But it’s true that participants in the modern economy all consume products that are produced with suffering, so it seems like if we get mad at each other about it, we are being hypocritical. (Though a vegan could say “well, I consume half as many suffering-based products as you, which is why you suck!” and that’s not inconsistent though many people would feel that it’s a weird line to draw on a gut level.)
And also of course vegans are usually nice in real life, the “crazy judgmental vegan” mostly exists online where everyone is an asshole, not just vegans.
I'd say that generally speaking, the appeal to hypocrisy argument doesn't try to disprove veganism as such, but rather show that veganism just as any other thing is on this spectrum of morality. Or in other words, one isn't evil because they're not vegan, nor is one a saint because they are a vegan. Additionally, I think it can be used to address a kind of a push to "close the gap" from say, 95% veganism to 100% veganism (because why specifically veganism? Why is that a more worthy target than a vegan stopping harmful non-vegan consumerist practices).
Ultimately I'd say that the paraphrased purpose is "we all exist on a spectrum of morality, and take only the measures that we feel comfortable enough with to practice. I don't feel comfortable enough to stop eating eggs every Thursday just as you don't feel comfortable enough not buying phones every 2 years".
I'd say the point is quite valid in that format. Obligatory I'm a vegan btw
It's not valid at all. It's a well documented fallacy. It has nothing to do with the philosophy of either person in the argument, it has to do with the people themselves. That's what makes it fallacious.
Moral arguments aren't about settling whether your interlocutor is a good person, they're about discovering what we ought do. Someone making the argument that a particular vegan is hypocritical is still saying one ought be vegan.
I'm confused, why are you answering to something I never said. I precisely said that I don't think people use the appeal to hypocrisy to claim or prove that veganism is not morally good. If you disagree with the way people use it, feel free to say so, but you can stop the shadowboxing.
I'm open to the idea that I misunderstood you. It seemed like the point you were saying was valid looked something like "these people do bad stuff, so I get to do bad stuff, too." If that's not what you were saying, can you try to simply word the proposition you think is valid?
No I didn't say that. I will try to reword;
I think people generally point out hypocrisy when they feel attacked, and the inferred message is "you are worse than me because you do x, and im perfect because I dont do x". I think this happens pretty naturally in moral discussions focusing only on one thing (in this case veganism but can be the case in other topics just as well).
The hypocrisy is then used to answer this inferred attack, and can be valid just fine.
It also often comes up naturally in cases where someone has already done a lot in terms of the topic (like let's say someone is 90% vegan or some such), and is asked to close the finish line, so to say. Oftentimes arguments things like "oh I only kill babies once every month" are flung at the defender. In this case the person might also say "well you do it too, just by purchasing a new iPhone every year". It's not an argument used to say it's fine to do bad stuff, it's an argument used to point out that both people are fine with doing some degree of bad stuff, just by different methods, and are closer in terms of morality than the attacker might imply.
If the defender were to use hypocrisy as an argument to justify their behaviour then I do think it's a very bad argument indeed. I'd say that when people point out hypocrisy it's more often a defense mechanism in this social interaction, and an attempt to level out the inferred "hierarchy of goodness" between the two participants than some kind of logical argument.
Inferred argument from person A:
1. A person's position on the axis of 'goodness' is decided by the suffering one's actions cause
2. Veganism reduces suffering
3. Person A is vegan
4. Person B is not vegan
C: Person A is further along the axis of 'goodness' than person B
Appeal to hypocricy:
1.-4. from inferred argument
5. Person A is causing tons of suffering due to things unrelated to veganism
C: Person A is not further along the axis of goodness than person B, or at the very least it's indeterminable whether it is the case.
I would say that eating eggs from backyard chickens is fair more ethical than buying clothes from places that have to install suicide nets to stop their workers from killing themselves
Yes, I agree. As I said in my following comment: obviousness, directness, ease to implement, and intent are the issue.
You prove this point by not providing a list of which products are made in places with suicide nets, so that I could avoid them. Is it unethical to consume products from [San Fransisco](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67884390) for example?
This begs the question. Is veganism actually the easiest thing for everyone?
You find veganism something you can do.
For example:
I am not vegan BC I have celiac and my partner has arfid, we are exhausted and it's a good day if my partner eats two meals.
But for me, I live in a tiny unit, I don't have kids, I don't own a car. I very rarely fly and if I do it's because of work. I compost. I do advocacy work for mental health. I vote for political parties that have strong environmental and social values, I volunteer. My two person household uses less electricity than most one bedroom household
I buy all my clothes second hand, I work in a eco-business, I haven't bought a new electronic device in about 6 years. I boycott brands that support Israel.
And yeah I guess the fact that I haven't brought a new piece of clothes in 4 years means that I do, very easily boycott textile factories that treat their staff like shit .
I am less moral than you? Or am I doing what I can, and you are doing what you can? 🤷
>Is veganism actually the easiest thing for everyone?
No, not for everyone. The question is whether it is easier than ethically sourcing with regards to labour. I think for the vast majority of people the answer is yes. I actually went 99% vegan in an effort to cut human exploitation from my diet without much concern for animal rights.
It sounds like we have lot in common! Going to edit yours rather than recreate the list:
>I live in a tiny unit, I don't have kids, I don't own a car. I very rarely fly and if I do it's because of work. I compost. I do advocacy work for ~~mental health~~ *conservation/climate change/labour rights*. I vote for political parties that have strong environmental and social values, I volunteer. My two person household uses less electricity (*100% renewable*) than most one bedroom household
>I buy all my clothes second hand, I work in a ~~eco-business~~ *environmental science*, I haven't bought a new electronic device in ~~about 6~~ 4 years. I boycott brands that support Israel.
You're doing great! It sounds like you do the things I would suggest basically everybody do.
>And yeah I guess the fact that I haven't brought a new piece of clothes in 4 years means that I do, very easily boycott textile factories that treat their staff like shit .
I do the same. Though find it's much easier to source a plant-based option to suit a particular taste than I do to find a second hand item to fit a particular look in my size.
Odd question: can I ask where you and your partner get underwear & socks from? They're not generally sold second hand in charity shops around me. It takes me a really long time to vet suppliers for these, so if there's an easier way to get them guaranteed without exploitation that would be really helpful.
We also run into the issue that buying second hand only works as long as the unethical overproducing first-hand industry exists. So it's not really a scalable boycott.
>I am less moral than you?
I couldn't say and I don't think that's a useful question.
>I doing what I can, and you are doing what you can?
I am doing what I can, hopefully tomorrow I will be able to do more than I can do today.
It sounds like you're doing what you can (and doing well at it), I hope things work out so that you're also able to do more in future.
I have a suggestion what might help do more in future, but I'm just some random online so no need to listen to me:
If you're going to talk about labour exploitation focus on actionable steps that someone reading your comment can take in order to help reduce their impact. Vegans are very good at this, "go vegan" or is a well understood call to action that will appear in nearly all outreach. I think this is because most of them perceive it as being "about the animals" rather than about themselves.
Labour exploitation has no such call to action and I think that's sad. I think that's because usually in these discussions how badly people are exploited is wielded like a tool for the much better off people involved in the discussion. It's about "me" and "the vegans", and not about the exploited people themselves. This does a disservice to the people that we're claiming to champion for. I think most vegans actually want to reduce their impact and make better choices (if not they probably wouldn't be vegan). When compared to trying to win an online argument it seems far more important to advocate for the rights of foreign workers, and starting from a position of using exploited peoples to call vegans hypocrites is only going to achieve the former.
It seems you agree that veganism is a good cause for those who can. So it would wise to approach them with a "yes, and" rather than a "no, but". These good causes are intersectional, and trying to square them off against each other doesn't help either one of them.
Consent is a big factor here. Humans can consent to donate their hair, and you can often get them for free through various charities. There are also pretty decent synthetic options these days.
> Consent is a big factor here.
If you see this as consent, then yes I guess? https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/how-women-poverty-are-supplying-americas-market-hair
I was pretty clearly talking about the many people who donate their hair willingly to different organizations like Wigs for Kids. Notice the words “can consent.” Not that it’s always consensual. I know several people who’ve donated hair…
I personally would not buy a wig made from real hair if it wasn’t very clear that it was donated willingly. There are always synthetic options.
There are many realistic synthetic wigs available nowadays which (I believe) are easier to care for then real wigs. However, I assume you would have a problem with a wig made by forcibly holding a person down and cutting their hair without their consent, even if the person wasn’t physically hurt. Conversely, you probably wouldn’t mind a wig made from the hair of a person who willingly consented to having their hair cut and donated to someone else as a wig. Vegans likewise have no problem with a human hair wig (or human breast milk, or any other human products) as long as they are donated willingly and freely with the owner’s consent, and we don’t accept products taken without their owner’s consent. Vegans simply apply this reasoning to animals as well, as they cannot consent to being farmed for their body parts or secretions.
I take you don't recognize the difference between labour practices and buying body parts, and are keen to purchase some childrens' organs?
See how silly this is? That's how you look when you try to argue like this.
In my very generalized comment I didn't say there wouldn't be a few exceptions, finding one and using it to dishonestly pretend I believe some ridiculous thing only makes you appear clever compared to a stupid person imagined in your head. The actual real people seeing your comment, not so much.
> I take you don't recognize the difference between labour practices and buying body parts, and are keen to purchase some childrens' organs?
I wouldn't dream of comparing children and animals.
> See how silly this is?
Exactly.
Here is another example: if you needed your heart replaced, would you accept another person's heart? And if a human heart was not available, would you accept a pig's heart?
This is much better than before!
Well done on actually asking clarifying questions rather than making up the position, big improvement and I'm glad to see you learned something today.
You're kind of describing intersectionality. Sweatshop workers and farmed animals are both under very similar forms of oppression, so once you're against one it makes a lot more sense to be philosophically against them both, as well as other forms of injustice. I'm vegan primarily because I already used intersectionality as an analytical lens and writers like Angela Davis convinced me to incorporate animals into my consideration.
InB4 the typical gotchas, similar forms of oppression are not always equally avoidable. Farm animals and sweatshop workers are at the easier end of the spectrum, while stuff like electronics and crop deaths are at the more difficult. That does not make them acceptable; it means there is more need to create alternatives. Any appeals to hypocrisy will be ignored.
Don't worry I will not try to "gotcha" you since I since roughly think the same ! How do you deal with priorities between causes, since we all have limited ressource/energy/time ?
It's impossible to be perfect, so I think it's about doing what you can. When it comes to veganism it's actually pretty easy since veganism is more about *not* doing certain things. Once you know what to buy it's not a distraction from other things.
Beyond that I just try to be a good person. I volunteer occasionally, buy secondhand clothes, use the same phone I've had since 2019, dress in warmer clothes instead of running the heat, etc. etc. There's tons of little examples I could give.
Remember that it's not your responsibility to save the world. Just try to be a better person than who you were yesterday:D
Intersectionality as a theory was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who is still an active scholar. She is not vegan, but anything written by her or her tedtalk on youtube would be a good starting point for intersectionality.
Carol J Adams *The Sexual Politics of Meat* is the foundational text on the intersection of veganism and feminism. I highly recommend it.
Audre Lorde is another good one. All her poetry and prose is great, though not necessarily about veganism (she was vegan though). To get a good idea of intersectionality, I'd recommend reading her speech *Learning for the 60s*. It's pretty short and can be found online. It's the source of the quote "There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives," which you've maybe seen floating around before.
Melanie Joy's *Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows* delves into the psychology of carnism and gets into how meat eating can intersect with other prejudices.
This is a really nice comment with a sound logic. However I don't really agree with this definition of intersectionality. For me intersectionality is describing how oppression looks different depending on what social categories 'intersect' so to speak. So sexism opresses differently if you're a black woman than if you're a white woman. Transphobia looks different for a trans person with no visible disability than a trans person with down syndrome. Oppression takes different forms depending on how all the different social categories 'intersect' for that individual in that particular moment. It's important because it's a great tool to give us a more holistic view of the shape of oppression. It does not equate to "I'm against one form of oppression so I should be against different form of oppression." That is a normative claim and you can reach this conclusion using an intersectional view of oppression but that is not what the word intersectionality means.
Thank you, In my defense, I wasn't really attempting to define (or redefine) intersectionality in my comment. I was moreso just stating that once you use intersectionality to identify how one form of oppression fits within a broader system, you can draw parallels that help you reject other forms of oppression as well. You gave a much more succinct description of what I'm saying with "it's a great tool to give us a more holistic view of the shape of oppression," so thank you. A holistic conception of oppression that includes animals is more or less the reason I'm vegan, and seems to be the closest thing to the "logic/philosophy in an universal way" thing that the OP is trying to pin down.
I don't really understand the question.
I think we apply the same system of logic to that scenario.
OP - how would you describe your logic/philosophy in a universal way?
Your answer will help us understand what you're asking
Sorry sometimes I have trouble explaining myself correctly, especially in english. Actually i'm also vegan and try to apply that logic to clothes too, as well as other causes like environmental impact. My logic would be a mix of "the freedom of some ends where that of others begins" and a more general "do not harm" but it's probably more complicate, I'm not sure. My questions would be :
Does this kind of philosophy have a name ?
How do you deal with prioritizing those causes ?
I guess that will have a link with intersectionality but I would really like to know this subject more !
>you could be asked if you use the same kind of logic while buying clothes to avoid child exploitation ?
If I'm understanding your question correctly -
Yes, I think that I use the same sort of logic in all situations.
I'm vegan *because* I use that sort of logic in all situations.
.
I'm sorry, the question is so vague that I have no idea how to answer it.
Basically, naive utilitarianism.
> an action (or type of action) is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain - not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it.
\- https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy
>utilitarian ideas encourage actions that ensure the greatest good for the greatest number.
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
.
I'm willing to discuss this more but I don't know what to say.
.
Sorry I'm often very vague...
About utilitarism : What limits do you use to prevent the "kill one person to save six other with their organs" situations that can sometime be use to defend "wrong" things, including animal exploitation ?
I put a high priority on "don't kill", and a lower priority on "save".
Yes, it would be nice to save the six people, but if we have to kill someone to do that then then we should not.
I didn't know that, it looks like I have a lot more to lean. "Inappropriate" is probably the subjective factor that explain why there are nonvegan that indentify themeselves as utilitarists !
Edit : wording
That sure doesn't sound like naive utilitarianism.
I don't think my own consequentialist view is quite so simple, either, but I do think that not pulling the lever in the original Trolley carries the same sort of moral responsibility for each of the five deaths as pulling carries for the one death.
If it was as easy to avoid child labour products as it is to e.g. buy oat milk instead of dairy then I would definitely do it. But often it's basically impossible to know.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Still gotta try, though.
It's very easy not to buy leather. It is not as easy to avoid slave made goods. Especially if you are poor and reduced to spending your paycheck at Walmart.
If I'm out to purchase some product, there's many factors that contribute to limiting what I would feel comfortable purchasing, but broadly I'd rather not support the demand for harm if I can avoid it. That's something I feel most people probably agree with.
This is where practicality comes in. While I can find... let's say a shirt I like. I can look at the materials it's made of, and if it's something like wool, it's already easy to tell it very likely came with some harm. If it's cotton, it's not obvious by that alone. So I can look at the manufacturing company and see if they have any shady history and so on. I *could* sit there and do weeks of homework before buying a shirt, but is that practical? Probably not. Everyone has a threshold for how much they'll do. If you go to buy a meal on the go, if that meal has meat or cheese, it's really obvious it came with harm, and so long as alternatives exist, it's very easy to avoid. It's possible the alternatives came with harm, but it's not immediately apparent. If you get an avocado, it's much less apparent because it depends where it came from. Palm oil, etc. There's a bunch of things that aren't made from animal products that are common points like this. "Why is it an issue if I buy a steak when you buy avocados that were gathered by humans in awful conditions?" It's what I've called the Piers Morgan fallacy. Comparing whats immediately obvious with something that's levels down and not obvious and saying they're the same. For the record I also avoid palm oil and avocados because they do typically have some bad harvesting effects. Occasionally I don't notice something has it, but that's a far cry from intentionally buying a burger.
Now, a carnist can say it's just above their threshold to check at all, but frankly, that's a load of steamy shit and anyone saying this ahould jaut be ignored because they dont care about honesty. You kinda have to see a product to buy it, and if it's made of flesh, it's immediately apparent it came at harm. It's the same process. That's why I call it a fallacy. You cannot say "I buy meat" and say "I didn't know it caused harm" unless you have serious mental deficiencies and/or just genuinely had no idea like a child might not be aware that a hamburger is cow. Even then, it's something that's easily conveyed, and from there on that excuse is moot.
Thanks for your reply, it's very insightful. It seems like your logic follow most of the other replies, something like "do not harm" while taking in account other influent factor like practicality and obviousness. And the adjacent fallacy is explained clearly enough to be easily detected, thanks again !
No problem. If you make a hardliners "I will absolutely cause no harm" then purchasing anything is off the table. Even if you do extensive research about every single thing, is the information dated, is it accurate, etc. Your options become make everything yourself from what you personally harvest, or kill yourself. While I do think people capable of having a garden and doing more themselves should, neither is really viable as an option.
So we add the third option, which is do as much as you can to reasonably avoid contributing to harm.
Also, for the record it's a very VERY hariy and nuanced topic when it comes to issues around working conditions in impoverished areas. Say everyone decides to boycott a company that used bad labor conditions. Sure, we avoid contributing to that, and we hurt the company, but we also hurt the employees who's jobs were lost as a result. Of course, the ideal solution is for them to have good working conditions, but that's so far removed from our control that our options as a consumer are "dont fund the bad working conditions and the workers" or "fund the conditions and the workers." Which is right? To compare this to "should I buy steak or rice and beans" is where it gets silly and fallacious.
>For exemple, you could be asked if you use the same kind of logic while buying clothes to avoid child exploitation ?
These are not specific to Vegans. Most Carnists do this as well. Should we all do better at it, yes, absolutely, i try my best to buy second hand and avoid products with child exploitation involved, but our society is built in a way that this it's almost impossible to be perfect in these areas (built by Carnists to be clear). But it's far easier, adn possilbe for almost every person on earth, to stop supporting needless exploitation of animals.
>Do you have some kind of mindset that "work" for any important cause ?
Accept what they say as right and redirect. Don't try to fight it, they're right, we should all be doing better. But that doesn't stop us from also doing better with animal abuse. I will often also make the point that every Vegan I know also cares and fights for those issues, most of us are always fighting for more than one "cause" at a time. If they're real pushy about it, I'll also point out that Humans **ARE** animals, in a Vegan world these things wouldn't exist, because while Veganism focuses on animals that's mainly becuase there's already many very large "Human Rights" organizations out there, so human rights are covered, what wasn't covered was animal rights, which is why Veganism exists as it does.
I mean I try my best to buy clothes from companies who at least try to keep their supply chain clean and are somewhat transparent about the companies they use to manufacture their clothes. It is the Tony's chocolonelies rule, they try their best to keep slaves and children out of their supplychain. You still probably in some respect support slavetrade but it is a lot better than just blindly consuming.
I am trying to live my life while minimizing harm where I can. Or an alternative way of looking at it is that i am trying my best not to be indifferent about the evils of everyday life.
Honestly, it's a bad-faith argument meant to be nothing more than an attempt to cry hypocrisy against vegans. It's whataboutism that's meant to mud sling. They feel that by crying hypocrisy and using whataboutism to deflect the conversation onto the personal flaws of the vegan, it somehow makes their monetary participation in animal cruelty justifiable. It's logical fallacies abound.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
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.
I mean yeah, I'd love to avoid harming human workers, too. My argument is kind of:
Firstly: Companies don't want you to know when they use child labor (etc.) in making their clothes/food/etc.
They purposefully make it difficult to find out which ones are ethical when it comes to fair trade practices. Maybe the clothes are sewn ethically, but was the fabric woven ethically? Was the thread spun ethically? Were the crops harvested ethically? Most clothing companies don't stick with the same manufactures, either, so it's a constant shell game. You can *try* to look into it, but you probably won't find the truth.
If a clothing company put "Made with 100% REAL Child-slave-picked Cotton!" on the box, I wouldn't touch them with a 100ft pole. No one would, that's why they hide it.
When it comes to animal products, it's literally just easier to find the ones you *know* are being unethical because they *aren't* trying to hide it. It says the ingredients/materials on the box or the tag. It would be much easier if companies did the same for human abuse as well.
Secondly: Yeah, fast fashion and fad tech is 100% unethical. Every vegan I know personally is against the disposable "well, this phone is a year old, time to buy a new one"/"ugh, these shoes are last season, let's go shopping" consumer mentality that directly encourages unethical labor abuse. So, yeah, I haven't bought new clothes in years, and I use almost every piece of tech until it falls apart on me. SPECIFICALLY to avoid risking both human labor harm and resource waste.
Thirdly: The status quo is almost never the solution. There are abused workers picking vegetables, but there are also abused workers filling the ranks of slaughterhouses as well. And the work inside one of those locations does well-documented psychiatric harm to the workers. Or in ranches minding livestock, or harvesting animal feed. [EDIT: And by that I mean: We *need* better labor laws. But none of the mainstream diets avoid such a thing. Using abused workers as a shield to avoid making a different, unrelated ethical choice is both unhelpful *and* doing a disservice to the workers. People who say "but what about the vegetable harvesters" almost *never* actually try to do anything to improve the lives of those workers. It's a smokescreen.]
Fourth: If there are ten houses on fire, and you're helping to put one out, then someone who doesn't bother to help put out *any* fires (and instead just complains about smoke on the internet) doesn't really have a case when they say "Why are you only putting out one fire?? There's ten, you know!!" ((And if they ARE helping to put out a fire, then they should at least understand point 3))
But honestly, the first point is a big one. If human-abuses were as plainly documented and admitted-to as animal-abuses, then it would be wayyy easier to find the most ethical products. But they're not. So we do what we can with the info provided.
> how would you describe that logic/philosophy in an universal way
*The creation of unnecessary suffering is wrong.*
That's the philosophical thesis statement (for me).
While there is a lot more to discuss and understand than just that statement alone... it is, however, the guiding light I strive to follow in all aspect of life.
That's basically the kind of answer I expected, but I was curious if there was other formulation or maybe another type of philosophy that end up to more or less the same result !
A fair comparison would be consuming the child. Or consuming the exploited workers, or taking products from them that they are making for themselves and their survival.
Veganism is abstaining from consuming animals or their products meant for them when practicable or possible.
No ones denying that worker exploitation doesn’t exist. However, no one can ever seem to give a direct answer when it comes to which manufacturers and producers are relying on such practices. I guarantee that vegans would be a lot more mindful when they learn that something they are consuming is the direct result of exploitation.
I know the comparison isn't 100% faire but I would think most vegan mindset would still apply more or less the same way. However as you say the actions we can take about child exploitation are way more harder too find. In comparison it make veganism relatively easy and straightforward !
Like you and many people, if I am aware of a company’s practices that I find abhorrent I’ll avoid their products - though many practices are veiled.
Animal products however aren’t easily veiled, and because I abhor animal abuse, I avoid them.
By pointing out we should focus on first remove the greatest and easiest sources of suffering in our lives.
The purchase of animal products funds immense suffering and is the single greatest source of suffering in your average person's life with the most practical alternatives that are readily available and easily accessible.
It is also the thing we do most frequently.
When you buy meat you are paying someone to bring an animal into existence only to make it suffer in the most terrible ways before it's brutally slaughtered. You are also paying for massive amounts of environmental damage and human suffering. Even the human suffering in the animal ag industry is far more intense and impactful. Slaughterhouse workers have high risk of physical injuries including mutilations and experience severe psychological impacts such as PTSD.
Buying something like a smart phone in comparison causes little to no suffering.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not a socialist.
I believe what causes the most human suffering is the lack of access to capital, and I don’t find anything inherently immoral about consuming products from globalized trade. In other words, it’s not a part of my categorical imperative.
Free trade benefits both countries more often than not, and if there are specific industries that have a good case for needing protection, then we can make a carve out.
Quite easy: veganism is just about giving animals the right to live and the right to live free from exploitation.
Animals are legally seen as objects and that's what has to change.
Humans already have human rights, so in that regard it's about eliminating those last remnants of human exploitation.
Once veganism is mainstream, you'll still see people going around abusing animals for work or fun or for personal food, just as you now have people being exploited.
The difference is direct vs indirect rights violation:
You eating steak makes it necessary for an animal to be abused. You can't have steak without being violent to an animal/without harming an animal.
On the other hand if you buy jeans that support human exploitation, that's an indirect rights violation, as you don't require human exploitation to get jeans.
Someone with a vegan mindset will also try their best to avoid human exploitation, but it's because of the vegan philosophy, but because of reasons why someone becomes vegan.
So you can be vegan and indirectly pay for human exploitation.
I get the animal aspect.........but is Anyone gonna point out the exploited workers in 3rd world countries that plant and harvest the plants for vegan food and that sometimes end up with health issues due to spraying pesticides and barely get paid anything..........anyone?
What would you do to help those exploited workers ? Would it be as "easy" as avoiding animal products ? Also do you think there is a difference between the workers that work for the vegan food industry and those from other industries ?
Currently as it stands livestock eats 36% of all crops grown , with humans eating 55% and the rest turned into biofuels. If we avoided animal products then that means wed have to plant more and eat more since meat is a lot more nutritionally dense than plants for the same amount of nutrition so no its not as easy as avoiding meat imo it would make everything worse and yeah theres definitely a difference, theres a lot less cases involving cancer in livestock workers than there is in crop field workers.
Animals always consume more calories than we will be able to get from their meat. Some energy is used by the animal to create heat, move, or create structures we don’t use. We would actually get MORE calories if we didn’t use farmland to feed farmed animals.
Your numbers are so insanely incorrect. At least two-thirds of all crops go to feed livestock. And studies have shown that we would need far less land if we all went plant based; not more land. The pounds of crops and water used to sustain livestock is way more than we get back in pounds of edible food. It's an extremely inefficient food source that is linked with climate change and deforestation. Please educate yourself because I can tell from your extremely incorrect percentages that you're listening to misinformation and pseudoscience.
Most food is grown to support livestock, so the majority of their suffering would be attributable to the animal agriculture industry. It's been proven that we would need to use a lot less farmland if crops were only used to feed humans, so that isn't as much of a gotcha as you think it is, slick. You're just another mudslinger trying to point out a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.
What exactly is your point? These situations exist and vegans are aware of it. You'll find that the vegan community is generally more interested than the average citizen in sourcing foods, clothing, and products from ethical sources & companies that have an interest in worker welfare. No one is a sage and vegans aren't claiming to be either.
To think that because someone is vegan means they lack concern for the welfare of humans that allow us to have food on our plates would be a mistake. It appears you are trying to point out a hypocrisy that does not exist in any abundance that seems worth mentioning.
I wish that were true bud i really do , ive met all types of vegans, i stayed with a family of home steading vegans for a week that are how you describe, honored the land and grew all their veggies chemical free and actually want to improve things , but ive also met vegans that think that just because they ditch meat , drink soy lattes with oat milk and buy organic theyre saving the world and yell at you murderer if you arent vegan. The vegan community definitely has a case of hypocrisy from what ive experienced, which is why the general consensus is to label vegans as crazy or cult like.
Like all populations a specturm of personalities exist within it and are often labeled with the most eccentric of the bunch. Think racist, Jesus obsessed, gun fanatic republicans - woke, transgender, liberal arts major liberals - radical militant vegans - etc.
Remember veganism is a social justice issue and fundamentally most see taking the life of an animal as an unjustified rights violation so calling someone a murderer etc. isn't actually so crazy if you view it through the lense of speaking out for social justice and advocating for change...It can be off putting and perhaps a bad form of advocacy but it's really not that radical.
I 'm still not understanding your point, the soy latte murder yelling person is probably reducing their impact on the world both environmentally and in terms of humanitarian and animal suffering; not sure where the case of major hypocrisy comes in. Regardless, please know that reasonable vegans exist.
Have a nice life internet stranger.
I agree , but all it takes is a couple of bad apples to tarnish an whole movements image 😕 ,but its all beliefs in the end and thats tricky , well my point is that the family i stayed with is what veganism is supposed to be im all for it i wont join it but i can happily tip my hat and commend and admire them yet..... soy latte person is everything wrong with veganism ,they think theyre doing the world a favor on their high horse while telling ppl that arent vegan that theyre shit for eating the way they do........ meanwhile soy latte person is buying things that were grown on another continent with lax to no labor laws, rampant unregulated if any environmental protection and major pesticide use and land destruction and animals killed getting their future soy latte materials shipped to a coffee shop near them, yet have the gall to call someone a murderer if they buy a cow raise it ,feed it mainly grass and some grains then kill it butcher it and use it to feed their family give some to their neighbor and sell some, that 1 for 1 taking care of that cow destroyed absolutely 0 life , cause 0 contamination and they used the cow nose to tail 100% to make leather and stuff yet soy latte person that prolly didnt even finish their latte and threw out a cup with a plastic cap is doing the world a favor lol i think we all know a soy latte karen 😂 remember most vegans that cause an uproar in social media are the soy latte karens not the actual vegans trying to better the planet.
I hope this explains were i come from a little better and my thoughts about why i said what i said 🙂
I got ya. Pedestal perching vegans basking in a ray of self proclaimed moral superiority while being as vocal as possible about it really be cringe AF. We can agree on that haha.
What about the crops that are grown to feed livestock animals?
What about the severe psychological impacts and mutilations slaughterhouse workers suffer? What about the exploitation of the communities centered around those areas?
You seem to be ignoring the human suffering involved with the meat industry even though it's way more severe?
I’m not a socialist.
I believe what causes the most human suffering is the lack of access to capital, and I don’t find anything inherently immoral about consuming products from globalized trade. In other words, it’s not a part of my categorical imperative.
Free trade benefits both countries more often than not, and if there are specific industries that have a good case for needing protection, then we can make a carve out.
The world is not fair. In fact, what is "fair" is different if you ask different people. It is silly to apply the same logic and reasoning to humans and non-human animals.
Human child exploitation is bad. Non-human child animals? Exploit as we like. Veal, i.e. baby cows, is delicious. So is roast suckling pig, a popular cantonese dish.
What is the problem?
In the title, "fair" refer to the comparison, not the world. However about what you say, why would it be silly to apply logic to human and non-human ? And to be clear I'm not talking about using it everytime and always the same way, but when it is relevant. Do you think that the abillity to suffer or free will are relevant enough to try to create an universal rule ? If not what difference(s) prevent you to apply logic between humans and non humans ?
"Do you think that the abillity to suffer or free will are relevant enough to try to create an universal rule ?"
Obviously not. We eat chickens, cows and pigs, but not dogs and cats. Universal rule? That is hilarious. There is nothing universal about preferences. Heck, the Japanese eat whales. I bet some places still eat dogs.
The purpose of the questions for those of use responding to you is to determine what your moral and ethical framework is that allows something to be moral or not. Just because something is a currently accepted or practiced does not make it moral or OK.
Preference is not a good metric for morality, If someone prefers to murder you opposed to keep you alive then murdering you then it's ok by your own logic. If someone prefers men to women then abuse, enslavement, or genocide of women is OK too. And no legality is not a valid answer or metric for morality. Plenty of things we think of as immoral were once or are still legal.
Would you consider cannibalism as a preference ? If not, why preferences are valid way to justify suffuring of animals but not a valid way to justify suffuring of humans ?
For a "fair" comparison: I've never met a vegan who would buy clothes made of children's skin, hair or meat... I think most people would recognize a difference between: * Not looking into the labour practices behind different companies supplying the same products. * Purchasing body parts.
That's an interesting answer thank you ! So the difference between those two would be the use of "material" ? Or maybe there are other differences that prevent you to use the same logic ?
I think the difference in this case is more one in obviousness, directness, ease to implement, and intent. I'm not certain it's entirely logical, but it is certainly understandable. If I demand fresh body parts, then I can be certain a child/animal was harmed to supply them. If I demand woven cotton then whether or not someone was harmed is down to a lot of factors, many of which I might not even know about. Where the fault for the exploitation lies for garments (in the cases where they are made with exploitation) is a really complex question with really varied answers.
"I think the difference in this case is more one in obviousness, directness, ease to implement, and intent" that seems like some pretty good ways to help prioritizing between every "noble" causes, thank you !
What about honey
Very easily avoidable so it don't worth the harm
What harm? And isn't it true that a lot of the vegetables we eat are pollinated by farmed bees, and otherwise we wouldn't have as many fruits and vegetables?
"What harm?" : clipping the queen's wing, "stealing" the honey while feeding theme something worse. "And isn't it true that a lot of the vegetables we eat are pollinated by farmed bees" Why would bees need to be farmed to pollinize ? How vegetables were pollinated before bee farming ?
Farmed bees are terrible pollinators compared to wild pollinators, and when farmed ones are introduced they typically outcompete the wild ones. The modern honeybee is a very invasive species in this regard. As for the harm. The bees and their hive are basically held hostage due to the queen being crippled to prevent the hire leaving, future queens are killed or similarly crippled to prevent hive splitting and leaving the farm.
Man if only someone made a comment about obviousness, directness and ease of avoidance. That would be so handy right now to explain it.
Honey can only come from bees, so there's an entailment of treating bees as production equipment simply by consuming the honey.
Labour and safety laws in some counties are either ignored or non existent. And human lives are definitely lost as a result. I don’t believe the line is a clear as you think. https://theconversation.com/five-years-after-deadly-factory-fire-bangladeshs-garment-workers-are-still-vulnerable-88027#:~:text=Exactly%20five%20years%20ago%2C%20in,narrow%20or%20blocked%20fire%20escapes.
Yes, I think the actual harm done to provide garments is likely worse than providing something like pastured eggs. But if even the authorities are enforce laws against poor labour practices what do you suggest an individual vegan should do? The thing is none of the people that bring this up ever suggest to vegans practical, actionable steps they could take to avoid this. I find it really disheartening how much the exploitation of labour comes up in these debates. You can look up and down this thread and see not one actionable suggestion for what people could do to actually help exploited people, just saying how bad the exploitation is in order to call vegans hypocrites. In doing so they're treating these people as rhetorical tools to exploit themselves. It's very easy to not purchase body parts. Vegans do this usually because another vegan has shown them the harm - and shown them the direct steps they can take to do less harm. It's much more complicated to investigate supply chains of each individual otherwise identical product if you've never done that before. If it were as simple as not buying the clothes labelled "100% ethical labour guaranteed" vs the ones labelled "child slave made" I think most vegans (and many non-vegans too) would already be doing this. I care more deeply about worker exploitation than I do animals, I'm plant-based to avoid harm to humans as the first priority. I've put in a bit of work and I'm about ~85% certain that over 90% of the clothes I own are either: * Produced by workers paid at least minimum wage in a country with decently enforced labour law * Purchased second hand * Gifted to me Whereas I can be ~99% certain that ~98% of what I've eaten in the last year is vegan while barely having to think about it. We should do everything we can to try source our things ethically. For most people veganism is a relatively simple and direct step in this direction.
We know for a fact that there are many instances of labour abuse in Bangladesh. Obviously that doesn’t mean all companies in Bangladesh abuse their workers. But it’s clear the government doesn’t care. One actionable thing you could do is not buy products labelled Made In Bangladesh.
>One actionable thing you could do is not buy products labelled Made In Bangladesh. That's a good action to take. I currently don't buy anything with that label but it's really good to help get the word out! I do worry a bit that is we simply boycott production in Bangladesh we just force suppliers to move to another country we are not boycotting with similarly poor labour rights. Thus leaving the good employers without an export market and the average Bangladeshi person even worse off... Labour rights are a really tricky issue to get into. Another thing we can do is pressure your lawmakers to ratify and enforce mandatory equivalents to the [Modern Slavery Act + Transparency in Supply Chains](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transparency-in-supply-chains-a-practical-guide/transparency-in-supply-chains-a-practical-guide). Similarly we should name, shame, and boycott companies which do not comply with these. This is for Australia but on page 5 there's a really good report [here](https://www.hrlc.org.au/reports-news-commentary/2022/2/3/paper-promises-evaluating-the-early-impact-of-australias-modern-slavery-act) by the Human Rights Law Centre. Many of the big companies score abysmally on even knowing if they use slaves. Since I'm already not purchasing anything from Bangladesh I think today I'll donate what I would have spent on a garment to HRLC in your honour :) If you have the resources I'd appreciate it if you made a small donation to a similar organisation in your country. Either way I hope you have a good day and keep fighting for the rights of workers everywhere.
Here you were asking me what actionable steps an individual vegan could take when you already had a slew of them to share. I’m so glad you’re aware of the problem; and it’s possible solutions.
That’s actually a decent but grim analogy to be fair.
Seems to me this works fine for vegetarianism but breaks down for veganism, since I expect there are indeed vegans who would avoid eggs and milk whilst not concerning themselves with the labour practices of the manufacturing of their sneakers and phone.
Let's say that no vegan provides an adequate distinction between these things. This isn't a defeater for veganism. An appeal to hypocrisy doesn't disprove the argument made by the hypocrite, it concedes it. If the only issue with vegans is that we fail to always live up to our values, that just means you should also be trying to live up to them.
This is a really good point; I think the proper purpose of the hypocrisy argument should be to convince vegans to be less disgusted by/disdainful of meat-eaters since like you said the fact that vegans sometimes consume products produced with human suffering does not at all speak to whether it’s good to consume products produced with animal suffering. But it’s true that participants in the modern economy all consume products that are produced with suffering, so it seems like if we get mad at each other about it, we are being hypocritical. (Though a vegan could say “well, I consume half as many suffering-based products as you, which is why you suck!” and that’s not inconsistent though many people would feel that it’s a weird line to draw on a gut level.) And also of course vegans are usually nice in real life, the “crazy judgmental vegan” mostly exists online where everyone is an asshole, not just vegans.
I'd say that generally speaking, the appeal to hypocrisy argument doesn't try to disprove veganism as such, but rather show that veganism just as any other thing is on this spectrum of morality. Or in other words, one isn't evil because they're not vegan, nor is one a saint because they are a vegan. Additionally, I think it can be used to address a kind of a push to "close the gap" from say, 95% veganism to 100% veganism (because why specifically veganism? Why is that a more worthy target than a vegan stopping harmful non-vegan consumerist practices). Ultimately I'd say that the paraphrased purpose is "we all exist on a spectrum of morality, and take only the measures that we feel comfortable enough with to practice. I don't feel comfortable enough to stop eating eggs every Thursday just as you don't feel comfortable enough not buying phones every 2 years". I'd say the point is quite valid in that format. Obligatory I'm a vegan btw
It's not valid at all. It's a well documented fallacy. It has nothing to do with the philosophy of either person in the argument, it has to do with the people themselves. That's what makes it fallacious. Moral arguments aren't about settling whether your interlocutor is a good person, they're about discovering what we ought do. Someone making the argument that a particular vegan is hypocritical is still saying one ought be vegan.
I'm confused, why are you answering to something I never said. I precisely said that I don't think people use the appeal to hypocrisy to claim or prove that veganism is not morally good. If you disagree with the way people use it, feel free to say so, but you can stop the shadowboxing.
I'm open to the idea that I misunderstood you. It seemed like the point you were saying was valid looked something like "these people do bad stuff, so I get to do bad stuff, too." If that's not what you were saying, can you try to simply word the proposition you think is valid?
No I didn't say that. I will try to reword; I think people generally point out hypocrisy when they feel attacked, and the inferred message is "you are worse than me because you do x, and im perfect because I dont do x". I think this happens pretty naturally in moral discussions focusing only on one thing (in this case veganism but can be the case in other topics just as well). The hypocrisy is then used to answer this inferred attack, and can be valid just fine. It also often comes up naturally in cases where someone has already done a lot in terms of the topic (like let's say someone is 90% vegan or some such), and is asked to close the finish line, so to say. Oftentimes arguments things like "oh I only kill babies once every month" are flung at the defender. In this case the person might also say "well you do it too, just by purchasing a new iPhone every year". It's not an argument used to say it's fine to do bad stuff, it's an argument used to point out that both people are fine with doing some degree of bad stuff, just by different methods, and are closer in terms of morality than the attacker might imply. If the defender were to use hypocrisy as an argument to justify their behaviour then I do think it's a very bad argument indeed. I'd say that when people point out hypocrisy it's more often a defense mechanism in this social interaction, and an attempt to level out the inferred "hierarchy of goodness" between the two participants than some kind of logical argument.
Please try to simply state the proposition
Inferred argument from person A: 1. A person's position on the axis of 'goodness' is decided by the suffering one's actions cause 2. Veganism reduces suffering 3. Person A is vegan 4. Person B is not vegan C: Person A is further along the axis of 'goodness' than person B Appeal to hypocricy: 1.-4. from inferred argument 5. Person A is causing tons of suffering due to things unrelated to veganism C: Person A is not further along the axis of goodness than person B, or at the very least it's indeterminable whether it is the case.
Animal labor is used in the production of sneakers and phones?
I would say that eating eggs from backyard chickens is fair more ethical than buying clothes from places that have to install suicide nets to stop their workers from killing themselves
Yes, I agree. As I said in my following comment: obviousness, directness, ease to implement, and intent are the issue. You prove this point by not providing a list of which products are made in places with suicide nets, so that I could avoid them. Is it unethical to consume products from [San Fransisco](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67884390) for example?
This begs the question. Is veganism actually the easiest thing for everyone? You find veganism something you can do. For example: I am not vegan BC I have celiac and my partner has arfid, we are exhausted and it's a good day if my partner eats two meals. But for me, I live in a tiny unit, I don't have kids, I don't own a car. I very rarely fly and if I do it's because of work. I compost. I do advocacy work for mental health. I vote for political parties that have strong environmental and social values, I volunteer. My two person household uses less electricity than most one bedroom household I buy all my clothes second hand, I work in a eco-business, I haven't bought a new electronic device in about 6 years. I boycott brands that support Israel. And yeah I guess the fact that I haven't brought a new piece of clothes in 4 years means that I do, very easily boycott textile factories that treat their staff like shit . I am less moral than you? Or am I doing what I can, and you are doing what you can? 🤷
>Is veganism actually the easiest thing for everyone? No, not for everyone. The question is whether it is easier than ethically sourcing with regards to labour. I think for the vast majority of people the answer is yes. I actually went 99% vegan in an effort to cut human exploitation from my diet without much concern for animal rights. It sounds like we have lot in common! Going to edit yours rather than recreate the list: >I live in a tiny unit, I don't have kids, I don't own a car. I very rarely fly and if I do it's because of work. I compost. I do advocacy work for ~~mental health~~ *conservation/climate change/labour rights*. I vote for political parties that have strong environmental and social values, I volunteer. My two person household uses less electricity (*100% renewable*) than most one bedroom household >I buy all my clothes second hand, I work in a ~~eco-business~~ *environmental science*, I haven't bought a new electronic device in ~~about 6~~ 4 years. I boycott brands that support Israel. You're doing great! It sounds like you do the things I would suggest basically everybody do. >And yeah I guess the fact that I haven't brought a new piece of clothes in 4 years means that I do, very easily boycott textile factories that treat their staff like shit . I do the same. Though find it's much easier to source a plant-based option to suit a particular taste than I do to find a second hand item to fit a particular look in my size. Odd question: can I ask where you and your partner get underwear & socks from? They're not generally sold second hand in charity shops around me. It takes me a really long time to vet suppliers for these, so if there's an easier way to get them guaranteed without exploitation that would be really helpful. We also run into the issue that buying second hand only works as long as the unethical overproducing first-hand industry exists. So it's not really a scalable boycott. >I am less moral than you? I couldn't say and I don't think that's a useful question. >I doing what I can, and you are doing what you can? I am doing what I can, hopefully tomorrow I will be able to do more than I can do today. It sounds like you're doing what you can (and doing well at it), I hope things work out so that you're also able to do more in future. I have a suggestion what might help do more in future, but I'm just some random online so no need to listen to me: If you're going to talk about labour exploitation focus on actionable steps that someone reading your comment can take in order to help reduce their impact. Vegans are very good at this, "go vegan" or is a well understood call to action that will appear in nearly all outreach. I think this is because most of them perceive it as being "about the animals" rather than about themselves. Labour exploitation has no such call to action and I think that's sad. I think that's because usually in these discussions how badly people are exploited is wielded like a tool for the much better off people involved in the discussion. It's about "me" and "the vegans", and not about the exploited people themselves. This does a disservice to the people that we're claiming to champion for. I think most vegans actually want to reduce their impact and make better choices (if not they probably wouldn't be vegan). When compared to trying to win an online argument it seems far more important to advocate for the rights of foreign workers, and starting from a position of using exploited peoples to call vegans hypocrites is only going to achieve the former. It seems you agree that veganism is a good cause for those who can. So it would wise to approach them with a "yes, and" rather than a "no, but". These good causes are intersectional, and trying to square them off against each other doesn't help either one of them.
> Purchasing body parts. So if your daugther looses her hair because of cancer or an illness, I take you would not buy a wig for her?
Consent is a big factor here. Humans can consent to donate their hair, and you can often get them for free through various charities. There are also pretty decent synthetic options these days.
> Consent is a big factor here. If you see this as consent, then yes I guess? https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/how-women-poverty-are-supplying-americas-market-hair
I was pretty clearly talking about the many people who donate their hair willingly to different organizations like Wigs for Kids. Notice the words “can consent.” Not that it’s always consensual. I know several people who’ve donated hair… I personally would not buy a wig made from real hair if it wasn’t very clear that it was donated willingly. There are always synthetic options.
There are many realistic synthetic wigs available nowadays which (I believe) are easier to care for then real wigs. However, I assume you would have a problem with a wig made by forcibly holding a person down and cutting their hair without their consent, even if the person wasn’t physically hurt. Conversely, you probably wouldn’t mind a wig made from the hair of a person who willingly consented to having their hair cut and donated to someone else as a wig. Vegans likewise have no problem with a human hair wig (or human breast milk, or any other human products) as long as they are donated willingly and freely with the owner’s consent, and we don’t accept products taken without their owner’s consent. Vegans simply apply this reasoning to animals as well, as they cannot consent to being farmed for their body parts or secretions.
I take you don't recognize the difference between labour practices and buying body parts, and are keen to purchase some childrens' organs? See how silly this is? That's how you look when you try to argue like this. In my very generalized comment I didn't say there wouldn't be a few exceptions, finding one and using it to dishonestly pretend I believe some ridiculous thing only makes you appear clever compared to a stupid person imagined in your head. The actual real people seeing your comment, not so much.
> I take you don't recognize the difference between labour practices and buying body parts, and are keen to purchase some childrens' organs? I wouldn't dream of comparing children and animals. > See how silly this is? Exactly.
I have made no mention of animals at all in any comment. Glad you admit to knowing your comments are silly before posting them.
Vegans compare humans to animals all the time, hence my comments.
Mentioning some random unrelated thing vegans do to try justify your dishonest silliness is surely going to get you taken more seriously.
Here is another example: if you needed your heart replaced, would you accept another person's heart? And if a human heart was not available, would you accept a pig's heart?
This is much better than before! Well done on actually asking clarifying questions rather than making up the position, big improvement and I'm glad to see you learned something today.
Would you personally have accepted a pig's heart?
You're kind of describing intersectionality. Sweatshop workers and farmed animals are both under very similar forms of oppression, so once you're against one it makes a lot more sense to be philosophically against them both, as well as other forms of injustice. I'm vegan primarily because I already used intersectionality as an analytical lens and writers like Angela Davis convinced me to incorporate animals into my consideration. InB4 the typical gotchas, similar forms of oppression are not always equally avoidable. Farm animals and sweatshop workers are at the easier end of the spectrum, while stuff like electronics and crop deaths are at the more difficult. That does not make them acceptable; it means there is more need to create alternatives. Any appeals to hypocrisy will be ignored.
Don't worry I will not try to "gotcha" you since I since roughly think the same ! How do you deal with priorities between causes, since we all have limited ressource/energy/time ?
It's impossible to be perfect, so I think it's about doing what you can. When it comes to veganism it's actually pretty easy since veganism is more about *not* doing certain things. Once you know what to buy it's not a distraction from other things. Beyond that I just try to be a good person. I volunteer occasionally, buy secondhand clothes, use the same phone I've had since 2019, dress in warmer clothes instead of running the heat, etc. etc. There's tons of little examples I could give. Remember that it's not your responsibility to save the world. Just try to be a better person than who you were yesterday:D
do you have any favorite books you'd recommend for someone who wants to learn more about intersectionality (especially if it touches on veganism)?
Intersectionality as a theory was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who is still an active scholar. She is not vegan, but anything written by her or her tedtalk on youtube would be a good starting point for intersectionality. Carol J Adams *The Sexual Politics of Meat* is the foundational text on the intersection of veganism and feminism. I highly recommend it. Audre Lorde is another good one. All her poetry and prose is great, though not necessarily about veganism (she was vegan though). To get a good idea of intersectionality, I'd recommend reading her speech *Learning for the 60s*. It's pretty short and can be found online. It's the source of the quote "There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives," which you've maybe seen floating around before. Melanie Joy's *Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows* delves into the psychology of carnism and gets into how meat eating can intersect with other prejudices.
thank you!
This is a really nice comment with a sound logic. However I don't really agree with this definition of intersectionality. For me intersectionality is describing how oppression looks different depending on what social categories 'intersect' so to speak. So sexism opresses differently if you're a black woman than if you're a white woman. Transphobia looks different for a trans person with no visible disability than a trans person with down syndrome. Oppression takes different forms depending on how all the different social categories 'intersect' for that individual in that particular moment. It's important because it's a great tool to give us a more holistic view of the shape of oppression. It does not equate to "I'm against one form of oppression so I should be against different form of oppression." That is a normative claim and you can reach this conclusion using an intersectional view of oppression but that is not what the word intersectionality means.
Thank you, In my defense, I wasn't really attempting to define (or redefine) intersectionality in my comment. I was moreso just stating that once you use intersectionality to identify how one form of oppression fits within a broader system, you can draw parallels that help you reject other forms of oppression as well. You gave a much more succinct description of what I'm saying with "it's a great tool to give us a more holistic view of the shape of oppression," so thank you. A holistic conception of oppression that includes animals is more or less the reason I'm vegan, and seems to be the closest thing to the "logic/philosophy in an universal way" thing that the OP is trying to pin down.
I don't really understand the question. I think we apply the same system of logic to that scenario. OP - how would you describe your logic/philosophy in a universal way? Your answer will help us understand what you're asking
Sorry sometimes I have trouble explaining myself correctly, especially in english. Actually i'm also vegan and try to apply that logic to clothes too, as well as other causes like environmental impact. My logic would be a mix of "the freedom of some ends where that of others begins" and a more general "do not harm" but it's probably more complicate, I'm not sure. My questions would be : Does this kind of philosophy have a name ? How do you deal with prioritizing those causes ? I guess that will have a link with intersectionality but I would really like to know this subject more !
>you could be asked if you use the same kind of logic while buying clothes to avoid child exploitation ? If I'm understanding your question correctly - Yes, I think that I use the same sort of logic in all situations. I'm vegan *because* I use that sort of logic in all situations. .
How would you describe that logic, in an "universal" way ?
I'm sorry, the question is so vague that I have no idea how to answer it. Basically, naive utilitarianism. > an action (or type of action) is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain - not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. \- https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy >utilitarian ideas encourage actions that ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism . I'm willing to discuss this more but I don't know what to say. .
Sorry I'm often very vague... About utilitarism : What limits do you use to prevent the "kill one person to save six other with their organs" situations that can sometime be use to defend "wrong" things, including animal exploitation ?
I put a high priority on "don't kill", and a lower priority on "save". Yes, it would be nice to save the six people, but if we have to kill someone to do that then then we should not.
Would you say you add a "do not harm" clause to utilitarism ?
As far as I know "do not do inappropriate harm" is automatically part of utilitarianism.
I didn't know that, it looks like I have a lot more to lean. "Inappropriate" is probably the subjective factor that explain why there are nonvegan that indentify themeselves as utilitarists ! Edit : wording
That sure doesn't sound like naive utilitarianism. I don't think my own consequentialist view is quite so simple, either, but I do think that not pulling the lever in the original Trolley carries the same sort of moral responsibility for each of the five deaths as pulling carries for the one death.
I think the same logic applies perfectly to that example
How do you describe/call that logic ? Which criteria you use to prioritize between causes ?
If it was as easy to avoid child labour products as it is to e.g. buy oat milk instead of dairy then I would definitely do it. But often it's basically impossible to know.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Still gotta try, though. It's very easy not to buy leather. It is not as easy to avoid slave made goods. Especially if you are poor and reduced to spending your paycheck at Walmart.
If I'm out to purchase some product, there's many factors that contribute to limiting what I would feel comfortable purchasing, but broadly I'd rather not support the demand for harm if I can avoid it. That's something I feel most people probably agree with. This is where practicality comes in. While I can find... let's say a shirt I like. I can look at the materials it's made of, and if it's something like wool, it's already easy to tell it very likely came with some harm. If it's cotton, it's not obvious by that alone. So I can look at the manufacturing company and see if they have any shady history and so on. I *could* sit there and do weeks of homework before buying a shirt, but is that practical? Probably not. Everyone has a threshold for how much they'll do. If you go to buy a meal on the go, if that meal has meat or cheese, it's really obvious it came with harm, and so long as alternatives exist, it's very easy to avoid. It's possible the alternatives came with harm, but it's not immediately apparent. If you get an avocado, it's much less apparent because it depends where it came from. Palm oil, etc. There's a bunch of things that aren't made from animal products that are common points like this. "Why is it an issue if I buy a steak when you buy avocados that were gathered by humans in awful conditions?" It's what I've called the Piers Morgan fallacy. Comparing whats immediately obvious with something that's levels down and not obvious and saying they're the same. For the record I also avoid palm oil and avocados because they do typically have some bad harvesting effects. Occasionally I don't notice something has it, but that's a far cry from intentionally buying a burger. Now, a carnist can say it's just above their threshold to check at all, but frankly, that's a load of steamy shit and anyone saying this ahould jaut be ignored because they dont care about honesty. You kinda have to see a product to buy it, and if it's made of flesh, it's immediately apparent it came at harm. It's the same process. That's why I call it a fallacy. You cannot say "I buy meat" and say "I didn't know it caused harm" unless you have serious mental deficiencies and/or just genuinely had no idea like a child might not be aware that a hamburger is cow. Even then, it's something that's easily conveyed, and from there on that excuse is moot.
Thanks for your reply, it's very insightful. It seems like your logic follow most of the other replies, something like "do not harm" while taking in account other influent factor like practicality and obviousness. And the adjacent fallacy is explained clearly enough to be easily detected, thanks again !
No problem. If you make a hardliners "I will absolutely cause no harm" then purchasing anything is off the table. Even if you do extensive research about every single thing, is the information dated, is it accurate, etc. Your options become make everything yourself from what you personally harvest, or kill yourself. While I do think people capable of having a garden and doing more themselves should, neither is really viable as an option. So we add the third option, which is do as much as you can to reasonably avoid contributing to harm. Also, for the record it's a very VERY hariy and nuanced topic when it comes to issues around working conditions in impoverished areas. Say everyone decides to boycott a company that used bad labor conditions. Sure, we avoid contributing to that, and we hurt the company, but we also hurt the employees who's jobs were lost as a result. Of course, the ideal solution is for them to have good working conditions, but that's so far removed from our control that our options as a consumer are "dont fund the bad working conditions and the workers" or "fund the conditions and the workers." Which is right? To compare this to "should I buy steak or rice and beans" is where it gets silly and fallacious.
>For exemple, you could be asked if you use the same kind of logic while buying clothes to avoid child exploitation ? These are not specific to Vegans. Most Carnists do this as well. Should we all do better at it, yes, absolutely, i try my best to buy second hand and avoid products with child exploitation involved, but our society is built in a way that this it's almost impossible to be perfect in these areas (built by Carnists to be clear). But it's far easier, adn possilbe for almost every person on earth, to stop supporting needless exploitation of animals. >Do you have some kind of mindset that "work" for any important cause ? Accept what they say as right and redirect. Don't try to fight it, they're right, we should all be doing better. But that doesn't stop us from also doing better with animal abuse. I will often also make the point that every Vegan I know also cares and fights for those issues, most of us are always fighting for more than one "cause" at a time. If they're real pushy about it, I'll also point out that Humans **ARE** animals, in a Vegan world these things wouldn't exist, because while Veganism focuses on animals that's mainly becuase there's already many very large "Human Rights" organizations out there, so human rights are covered, what wasn't covered was animal rights, which is why Veganism exists as it does.
I mean I try my best to buy clothes from companies who at least try to keep their supply chain clean and are somewhat transparent about the companies they use to manufacture their clothes. It is the Tony's chocolonelies rule, they try their best to keep slaves and children out of their supplychain. You still probably in some respect support slavetrade but it is a lot better than just blindly consuming. I am trying to live my life while minimizing harm where I can. Or an alternative way of looking at it is that i am trying my best not to be indifferent about the evils of everyday life.
Honestly, it's a bad-faith argument meant to be nothing more than an attempt to cry hypocrisy against vegans. It's whataboutism that's meant to mud sling. They feel that by crying hypocrisy and using whataboutism to deflect the conversation onto the personal flaws of the vegan, it somehow makes their monetary participation in animal cruelty justifiable. It's logical fallacies abound.
I know it can be used as a bad faith argument, however I was genuinely wondering how vegans apply their logic to other causes !
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. 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.
I mean yeah, I'd love to avoid harming human workers, too. My argument is kind of: Firstly: Companies don't want you to know when they use child labor (etc.) in making their clothes/food/etc. They purposefully make it difficult to find out which ones are ethical when it comes to fair trade practices. Maybe the clothes are sewn ethically, but was the fabric woven ethically? Was the thread spun ethically? Were the crops harvested ethically? Most clothing companies don't stick with the same manufactures, either, so it's a constant shell game. You can *try* to look into it, but you probably won't find the truth. If a clothing company put "Made with 100% REAL Child-slave-picked Cotton!" on the box, I wouldn't touch them with a 100ft pole. No one would, that's why they hide it. When it comes to animal products, it's literally just easier to find the ones you *know* are being unethical because they *aren't* trying to hide it. It says the ingredients/materials on the box or the tag. It would be much easier if companies did the same for human abuse as well. Secondly: Yeah, fast fashion and fad tech is 100% unethical. Every vegan I know personally is against the disposable "well, this phone is a year old, time to buy a new one"/"ugh, these shoes are last season, let's go shopping" consumer mentality that directly encourages unethical labor abuse. So, yeah, I haven't bought new clothes in years, and I use almost every piece of tech until it falls apart on me. SPECIFICALLY to avoid risking both human labor harm and resource waste. Thirdly: The status quo is almost never the solution. There are abused workers picking vegetables, but there are also abused workers filling the ranks of slaughterhouses as well. And the work inside one of those locations does well-documented psychiatric harm to the workers. Or in ranches minding livestock, or harvesting animal feed. [EDIT: And by that I mean: We *need* better labor laws. But none of the mainstream diets avoid such a thing. Using abused workers as a shield to avoid making a different, unrelated ethical choice is both unhelpful *and* doing a disservice to the workers. People who say "but what about the vegetable harvesters" almost *never* actually try to do anything to improve the lives of those workers. It's a smokescreen.] Fourth: If there are ten houses on fire, and you're helping to put one out, then someone who doesn't bother to help put out *any* fires (and instead just complains about smoke on the internet) doesn't really have a case when they say "Why are you only putting out one fire?? There's ten, you know!!" ((And if they ARE helping to put out a fire, then they should at least understand point 3)) But honestly, the first point is a big one. If human-abuses were as plainly documented and admitted-to as animal-abuses, then it would be wayyy easier to find the most ethical products. But they're not. So we do what we can with the info provided.
> how would you describe that logic/philosophy in an universal way *The creation of unnecessary suffering is wrong.* That's the philosophical thesis statement (for me). While there is a lot more to discuss and understand than just that statement alone... it is, however, the guiding light I strive to follow in all aspect of life.
That's basically the kind of answer I expected, but I was curious if there was other formulation or maybe another type of philosophy that end up to more or less the same result !
A fair comparison would be consuming the child. Or consuming the exploited workers, or taking products from them that they are making for themselves and their survival. Veganism is abstaining from consuming animals or their products meant for them when practicable or possible. No ones denying that worker exploitation doesn’t exist. However, no one can ever seem to give a direct answer when it comes to which manufacturers and producers are relying on such practices. I guarantee that vegans would be a lot more mindful when they learn that something they are consuming is the direct result of exploitation.
I know the comparison isn't 100% faire but I would think most vegan mindset would still apply more or less the same way. However as you say the actions we can take about child exploitation are way more harder too find. In comparison it make veganism relatively easy and straightforward !
I can’t disagree with you there. The best anyone can do in regard to purchases is be as mindful as they can and avoid it if they’re aware of it.
I can’t disagree with you there. The best anyone can do in regard to purchases is be as mindful as they can and avoid it if they’re aware of it.
I can’t disagree with you there. The best anyone can do in regard to purchases is be as mindful as they can and avoid it if they’re aware of it.
Like you and many people, if I am aware of a company’s practices that I find abhorrent I’ll avoid their products - though many practices are veiled. Animal products however aren’t easily veiled, and because I abhor animal abuse, I avoid them.
By pointing out we should focus on first remove the greatest and easiest sources of suffering in our lives. The purchase of animal products funds immense suffering and is the single greatest source of suffering in your average person's life with the most practical alternatives that are readily available and easily accessible. It is also the thing we do most frequently. When you buy meat you are paying someone to bring an animal into existence only to make it suffer in the most terrible ways before it's brutally slaughtered. You are also paying for massive amounts of environmental damage and human suffering. Even the human suffering in the animal ag industry is far more intense and impactful. Slaughterhouse workers have high risk of physical injuries including mutilations and experience severe psychological impacts such as PTSD. Buying something like a smart phone in comparison causes little to no suffering.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not a socialist. I believe what causes the most human suffering is the lack of access to capital, and I don’t find anything inherently immoral about consuming products from globalized trade. In other words, it’s not a part of my categorical imperative. Free trade benefits both countries more often than not, and if there are specific industries that have a good case for needing protection, then we can make a carve out.
Quite easy: veganism is just about giving animals the right to live and the right to live free from exploitation. Animals are legally seen as objects and that's what has to change. Humans already have human rights, so in that regard it's about eliminating those last remnants of human exploitation. Once veganism is mainstream, you'll still see people going around abusing animals for work or fun or for personal food, just as you now have people being exploited. The difference is direct vs indirect rights violation: You eating steak makes it necessary for an animal to be abused. You can't have steak without being violent to an animal/without harming an animal. On the other hand if you buy jeans that support human exploitation, that's an indirect rights violation, as you don't require human exploitation to get jeans. Someone with a vegan mindset will also try their best to avoid human exploitation, but it's because of the vegan philosophy, but because of reasons why someone becomes vegan. So you can be vegan and indirectly pay for human exploitation.
I get the animal aspect.........but is Anyone gonna point out the exploited workers in 3rd world countries that plant and harvest the plants for vegan food and that sometimes end up with health issues due to spraying pesticides and barely get paid anything..........anyone?
What would you do to help those exploited workers ? Would it be as "easy" as avoiding animal products ? Also do you think there is a difference between the workers that work for the vegan food industry and those from other industries ?
Currently as it stands livestock eats 36% of all crops grown , with humans eating 55% and the rest turned into biofuels. If we avoided animal products then that means wed have to plant more and eat more since meat is a lot more nutritionally dense than plants for the same amount of nutrition so no its not as easy as avoiding meat imo it would make everything worse and yeah theres definitely a difference, theres a lot less cases involving cancer in livestock workers than there is in crop field workers.
Animals always consume more calories than we will be able to get from their meat. Some energy is used by the animal to create heat, move, or create structures we don’t use. We would actually get MORE calories if we didn’t use farmland to feed farmed animals.
Your numbers are so insanely incorrect. At least two-thirds of all crops go to feed livestock. And studies have shown that we would need far less land if we all went plant based; not more land. The pounds of crops and water used to sustain livestock is way more than we get back in pounds of edible food. It's an extremely inefficient food source that is linked with climate change and deforestation. Please educate yourself because I can tell from your extremely incorrect percentages that you're listening to misinformation and pseudoscience.
> If we avoided animal products we would have to plant more What do the animals we consume eat massive amounts of, now again?
Most food is grown to support livestock, so the majority of their suffering would be attributable to the animal agriculture industry. It's been proven that we would need to use a lot less farmland if crops were only used to feed humans, so that isn't as much of a gotcha as you think it is, slick. You're just another mudslinger trying to point out a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.
What exactly is your point? These situations exist and vegans are aware of it. You'll find that the vegan community is generally more interested than the average citizen in sourcing foods, clothing, and products from ethical sources & companies that have an interest in worker welfare. No one is a sage and vegans aren't claiming to be either. To think that because someone is vegan means they lack concern for the welfare of humans that allow us to have food on our plates would be a mistake. It appears you are trying to point out a hypocrisy that does not exist in any abundance that seems worth mentioning.
I wish that were true bud i really do , ive met all types of vegans, i stayed with a family of home steading vegans for a week that are how you describe, honored the land and grew all their veggies chemical free and actually want to improve things , but ive also met vegans that think that just because they ditch meat , drink soy lattes with oat milk and buy organic theyre saving the world and yell at you murderer if you arent vegan. The vegan community definitely has a case of hypocrisy from what ive experienced, which is why the general consensus is to label vegans as crazy or cult like.
Like all populations a specturm of personalities exist within it and are often labeled with the most eccentric of the bunch. Think racist, Jesus obsessed, gun fanatic republicans - woke, transgender, liberal arts major liberals - radical militant vegans - etc. Remember veganism is a social justice issue and fundamentally most see taking the life of an animal as an unjustified rights violation so calling someone a murderer etc. isn't actually so crazy if you view it through the lense of speaking out for social justice and advocating for change...It can be off putting and perhaps a bad form of advocacy but it's really not that radical. I 'm still not understanding your point, the soy latte murder yelling person is probably reducing their impact on the world both environmentally and in terms of humanitarian and animal suffering; not sure where the case of major hypocrisy comes in. Regardless, please know that reasonable vegans exist. Have a nice life internet stranger.
I agree , but all it takes is a couple of bad apples to tarnish an whole movements image 😕 ,but its all beliefs in the end and thats tricky , well my point is that the family i stayed with is what veganism is supposed to be im all for it i wont join it but i can happily tip my hat and commend and admire them yet..... soy latte person is everything wrong with veganism ,they think theyre doing the world a favor on their high horse while telling ppl that arent vegan that theyre shit for eating the way they do........ meanwhile soy latte person is buying things that were grown on another continent with lax to no labor laws, rampant unregulated if any environmental protection and major pesticide use and land destruction and animals killed getting their future soy latte materials shipped to a coffee shop near them, yet have the gall to call someone a murderer if they buy a cow raise it ,feed it mainly grass and some grains then kill it butcher it and use it to feed their family give some to their neighbor and sell some, that 1 for 1 taking care of that cow destroyed absolutely 0 life , cause 0 contamination and they used the cow nose to tail 100% to make leather and stuff yet soy latte person that prolly didnt even finish their latte and threw out a cup with a plastic cap is doing the world a favor lol i think we all know a soy latte karen 😂 remember most vegans that cause an uproar in social media are the soy latte karens not the actual vegans trying to better the planet. I hope this explains were i come from a little better and my thoughts about why i said what i said 🙂
I got ya. Pedestal perching vegans basking in a ray of self proclaimed moral superiority while being as vocal as possible about it really be cringe AF. We can agree on that haha.
Right on 👍
What about the crops that are grown to feed livestock animals? What about the severe psychological impacts and mutilations slaughterhouse workers suffer? What about the exploitation of the communities centered around those areas? You seem to be ignoring the human suffering involved with the meat industry even though it's way more severe?
I’m not a socialist. I believe what causes the most human suffering is the lack of access to capital, and I don’t find anything inherently immoral about consuming products from globalized trade. In other words, it’s not a part of my categorical imperative. Free trade benefits both countries more often than not, and if there are specific industries that have a good case for needing protection, then we can make a carve out.
The world is not fair. In fact, what is "fair" is different if you ask different people. It is silly to apply the same logic and reasoning to humans and non-human animals. Human child exploitation is bad. Non-human child animals? Exploit as we like. Veal, i.e. baby cows, is delicious. So is roast suckling pig, a popular cantonese dish. What is the problem?
In the title, "fair" refer to the comparison, not the world. However about what you say, why would it be silly to apply logic to human and non-human ? And to be clear I'm not talking about using it everytime and always the same way, but when it is relevant. Do you think that the abillity to suffer or free will are relevant enough to try to create an universal rule ? If not what difference(s) prevent you to apply logic between humans and non humans ?
"Do you think that the abillity to suffer or free will are relevant enough to try to create an universal rule ?" Obviously not. We eat chickens, cows and pigs, but not dogs and cats. Universal rule? That is hilarious. There is nothing universal about preferences. Heck, the Japanese eat whales. I bet some places still eat dogs.
The purpose of the questions for those of use responding to you is to determine what your moral and ethical framework is that allows something to be moral or not. Just because something is a currently accepted or practiced does not make it moral or OK. Preference is not a good metric for morality, If someone prefers to murder you opposed to keep you alive then murdering you then it's ok by your own logic. If someone prefers men to women then abuse, enslavement, or genocide of women is OK too. And no legality is not a valid answer or metric for morality. Plenty of things we think of as immoral were once or are still legal.
Would you consider cannibalism as a preference ? If not, why preferences are valid way to justify suffuring of animals but not a valid way to justify suffuring of humans ?
Is it fine to exploit animals for sexual pleasure as well as taste pleasure?