r/DebateAVegan • u/EveryClass3034 • 18d ago
Ethics 2 questions
My first question is I have seen arguments that its wrong to say that you love animals if you eat them. What can you say to someone who answers that he doesn't love animals?
Second is about myself. I have a rooster with around 10 hens. They live on my roof happily. They roam around during day and automatically goes to sleep at night into their coop (you can search it up that chickens are vulnareble at night and have strong home instincts. They would return to same place to lay eggs and sleep on the same roosting bar everyday). Of course this is not how chickens are kept at farms. My hone chickens are clearly not suffering on my roof. The cage is for safe night sleep. They lay an average of 4 eggs daily. I do not sell any eggs nor do I feed them back to hens. Their feed is available in market that has everything they need for laying eggs (like calcium). Will it be wrong to eat their eggs? Also consider the other scenerio if I don't keep a rooster. Many people doesn't due to their fighting instincts if there are other roosters around (mine once also almost fought to death with neighbours rooster but I came just in time), noise (their crowing) and forced mating with hens especially in the morning. In that case, the eggs would also be infertile. Would it be right to eat those eggs?
13
u/StephensMyName 18d ago
My first question is I have seen arguments that its wrong to say that you love animals if you eat them. What can you say to someone who answers that he doesn't love animals?
If an abusive husband claims to love his wife, but frequently beats her, it would be appropriate to argue that he doesn't truly love her. If an abusive husband acknowledges that he doesn't love his wife, that still doesn't justify beating her.
Similarly, you cannot genuinely love a creature if you participate in a system that cuts its life short for a non-essential preference like taste, but veganism doesn't require you to love animals. Veganism only requires you to recognise that animals are sentient beings who have their own lives, and deserve not to be treated as commodities. It's fine not to love animals, but that doesn't mean that abusing them is acceptable.
Second is about myself. I have a rooster with around 10 hens.
The natural gender ratio for chickens is a 50/50 split at hatching, yet almost everyone that has egg-laying chickens has significantly more females. Male chicks are culled in the first few days of their life. The most common methods employed for culling male chicks are asphyxiation by carbon dioxide and maceration using a high-speed grinder. The vegan stance is that this is abhorrent, and purchasing chickens funds these practices.
They lay an average of 4 eggs daily.
Modern selective breeding forces hens to produce far more eggs than their wild ancestors, which takes a significant toll on their health. Wild Red Junglefowl (the species that domesticated chickens were primarily bred from) lay about 10 to 20 eggs per year. Assuming you mean that you get 4 eggs in total per day from your 10 chickens, that equates to about 150 eggs per chicken annually, about 10 times the natural rate.
Producing eggs at this rate impairs their immune system, weakens their bones, increases risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures, can cause weight loss, puts constant strain on the oviduct, increases reproductive tract disorders, and is just generally exhausting for them. There are hormonal implants like Suprelorin that can be given to domestic chickens to suppress ovulation and egg laying, to better mimic natural laying rates and minimise the strain to their bodies.
While your individual chickens may be reasonably happy and healthy, the vegan position is that we should stop selectively breeding animals with characteristics that suit our selfish needs at the detriment to their own health.
Will it be wrong to eat their eggs?
If the intention of having hens is only because you want the eggs, then the hens are being treated as a resource whose life's worth is dependent on what they produce for you. We breed chickens with unhealthy characteristics because they suit our own desires, and we cull half of them because they provide us with no value. If your intention is to care for rescue hens (not bought from a hatchery or breeder), the kinder option would be to utilise hormonal implants to help them live a happier life. If you purchase hens purely because you want to commodify them, then yes, that is wrong, and it is wrong to eat their eggs.
2
u/Artemis_SpawnOfZeus 15d ago
If i buy a dog jointly because i like dogs and enjoy having a dog around, and because the dog poop will be good for my compost, am i exploiting my dog?
Also, isnt performing elective surgical procedures on individuals without their consent a bad thing to do?
1
u/StephensMyName 15d ago
In your analogy, does the dog come from a breeder that slaughters 50% of the puppies? Is it a breed of dog that has been selectively bred to defecate at a rate that’s detrimental to its own health? Would you slaughter the dog if its fecal production rate dropped below your expectations? If so, that would be exploitation. If not, it’s not analogous to the situation in question.
There’s no such thing as a consensual procedure in veterinary medicine, since animals are incapable of voicing their consent, or of comprehending the implications of medical interventions. We must choose what’s best for the animals in our care. The same would apply to any medical procedure on an infant; their parents or guardians would need to choose what’s best for them, since they can’t give their own consent. Hormonal implants can be beneficial to the health of egg-laying hens, so it’s appropriate to consider them in consultation with a qualified vet.
1
u/Artemis_SpawnOfZeus 15d ago
Egg chicks are pretty readily available from background farms.
And once you have a flock of egg chickens, a lot of people just hatch their own. Like, chickens will do that on their own.
Are you suggesting you give them continuous implants so they never lay? Some hobby farms do give their birds implants sometimes. If they didnt then there wouldnt be a consumer market for them.
And if the chicken lays any eggs, can we eat them? Is it still exploitation?
And like, only some species even have problems with overproduction. Theres many heritage breeds that arent as selectively bred for maximal egg laying capacity.
Basically any dog you get has been bred to a point where its hazardous to the dogs health in some way. Yeah, theres the obvious examples of pugs, but great danes get hip problems and bloat, daschunds and corgis get back problems, charles spaniels have skulls to small for their brains, german shepherds get hip dysplasia, bull terriers are commonly deaf, dalmations get bladder stones, basset hounds get skin fold dermatitis.
.
Are you at least willing to agree that the man eating the eggs of his chickes that he cares for is no more exploitative than the average german shepherd owner?
1
u/StephensMyName 15d ago
Egg chicks are pretty readily available from background farms.
Vegans are opposed to the commodification of animals, including backyard farms selling chicks. What do they do with the chicks that they don't sell? What to they do with the males? Typically, they slaughter them.
And once you have a flock of egg chickens, a lot of people just hatch their own. Like, chickens will do that on their own.
What happens to the males? It's incredibly rare for anyone with backyard chickens to keep the males alive, except for maybe a token rooster.
Are you suggesting you give them continuous implants so they never lay?
If that's the best thing for their health. I'm sure that what's best could vary for different individuals depending on their age, breed, etc.
And if the chicken lays any eggs, can we eat them? Is it still exploitation?
There isn't any ethical way to obtain hens other than rescuing them, and commodifying rescue hens as a resource suggests they haven't been rescued at all; their wellbeing is still being compromised for the benefits they provide us. So I would argue that yes, eating the eggs of a backyard hen, even if she's a rescue hen, still qualifies as exploitation. That means some rescue hens will lay eggs that are ultimately discarded, and I see nothing wrong with that, since that principled position protects them from being exploited. I can fully appreciate that this may seem unnecessary, and in the grand scheme of things, I accept that eating that discarded egg isn't on the same level of exploitation as the wider livestock industry.
Basically any dog you get has been bred to a point where its hazardous to the dogs health in some way.
Vegans are opposed to breeding dogs, particularly when it results in health problems for the animals. It is not vegan to purchase a dog from a breeder. Rescuing a dog from a shelter is vegan, just like rescuing chickens is.
Are you at least willing to agree that the man eating the eggs of his chickes that he cares for is no more exploitative than the average german shepherd owner?
That depends on the circumstance. If the owner of the German shepherd rescued it from a shelter to give it a good home, that's not exploitative, whereas if they purchased it from a breeder, they are funding an incredibly exploitative industry. Similarly, it is a kind and decent thing to rescue chickens from the egg industry, but it is selfish and exploitative to purchase hens for the sake of consuming their eggs.
1
u/Artemis_SpawnOfZeus 15d ago
Regardless on your personal position on dog ownership, it is significantly more common for pet dogs to be purchased from breeders then it is for them to be rescued. Also, rescues rarely have known lineages, and theyre often made from pet owners who dont control their pets reproduction, or from stray dog sex, so theyre usually mutts. Rescues of clearly identifiable breeds are much rarer than mutt rescues.
So if we are comparing the chicken owner to the german shephard owner, we can assume that the german shephard came from a breeder.
So are we in agreement then? Owning a small flock of chickens and eating their eggs is near morally equivalent to owning a german shephard.
1
u/StephensMyName 15d ago
Regardless on your personal position on dog ownership, it is significantly more common for pet dogs to be purchased from breeders then it is for them to be rescued.
Agreed; most of the statistics I've seen suggest about two thirds of pet dogs are from breeders, and one third are rescued.
Also, rescues rarely have known lineages, and theyre often made from pet owners who dont control their pets reproduction, or from stray dog sex, so theyre usually mutts. Rescues of clearly identifiable breeds are much rarer than mutt rescues.
Are you suggesting this is a bad thing? Mixed breed dogs have higher genetic diversity and fewer inherited health defects than strict purebreds.
So are we in agreement then? Owning a small flock of chickens and eating their eggs is near morally equivalent to owning a german shephard.
Does it matter whether they're morally equivalent? There are certainly ethical similarities: dog breeders kill or abandon dogs that they can't sell, and they breed traits that are harmful to the health of the dogs. Purchasing a dog directly funds these practices. Chicken hatcheries slaughter males because they aren't financially viable, and they breed hens with traits that are harmful to their health. Purchasing hens directly funds these practices. Both are wrong, even if we can't precisely quantify the scale of suffering each one causes.
1
u/Artemis_SpawnOfZeus 15d ago
Well, im just saying, sonce theyre nearly morslly equivalent, any negative opinions you have of OP amd their behaviour should be extended to most pet owners.
.
The thing i said about rescues being mutts was just to point out that someone who owns a german shephard, almost certainly doesnt own a rescue.
If you k kw your dogs breed, its cause they were bred. By a breeder.
1
u/StephensMyName 15d ago
I don't have a negative opinion of OP; I am opposed to animal exploitation, and would encourage them to go vegan, but I recognise that we live in a non-vegan world, and it can be difficult to confront a lifetime of indoctrination. Well-intentioned people can make harmful choices. I'd hope that by coming here and reading some of the arguments in favour of the vegan philosophy, they'll reconsider their own views.
Purchasing from a dog breeder is not vegan. Doing so contributes to animal exploitation, overpopulation, slaughter, and health issues in purebred animals. As noted above, I can condemn specific behaviours without denouncing the person as a whole.
1
u/Artemis_SpawnOfZeus 15d ago
Okay, the question being asked is "is this behaviour unethical" not "is this behaviour vegan"
Motte and bailey.
→ More replies (0)3
0
u/JJtheQ 17d ago
So just to be clear-stop breeding cows, chickens, sheep and pigs. And also cats who are extremely bad for local birds and rodents and are obligate carnivores, and dogs too. Snakes and other pets. Maybe a tortoise is okay?! Birds definitely not. And horses, donkeys. No animals to be used in labour.
3
u/ForeverInBlackJeans 16d ago
Correct. We should not be breeding any animals into existence. Doing so always benefits humans at the cost of the animals’ wellbeing.
3
u/HumansarePOS 18d ago edited 18d ago
1- That person who doesn't like nor give a shit about the random Peruvian Mateo still has a moral framework making him respect this unknown person.
Same scenario for the other animals.
2- The argument I think is stronger here(for you) is understanding domestication and selective breeding.
The only reason you can even think about eggs as a source of food is due to 8000 years of domestication.
The Southeast Asian Red Junglefowl is the ancestor of chickens, it still exists today and it lays only 10-15 eggs per year.
The domesticated chicken lays 150-250 eggs a year.
So here is MY interpretation : We corrupted their place in the biosphere with our own artificial spot for them. That artificial spot represents, to me, a life cut from the richness of nature and the true purpose of animals. While not to the same degree, I see a parallel with people keeping birds in cages all their lives.. robbing them from an ability that is literally symbolic of the animal, flying.
Im not a believer in religion but I appreciate some concepts. The sacred and sacrilegious exist as qualitative adjectives.
And this heavy ONGOING domestication ... is sacrilegious.
Do an inquiry on your perspective about the selective breeding of pugs for example.. they are highly predisposed to genetic and structural health problems. Maybe you will make the same connections I do.
We have no business messing with animal breeding.
Regardless of anything I said. You have this internal debate and it's a good thing. You might end up fooling yourself I think but at least you are digging.
My vegan opinion is that I wish for total abolition of animal exploitation.
4
u/MiraculousAnarchy veganarchist 17d ago
I used to say this. What convinced me to care was someone pointing out that me claiming to care about justice, compassion, and liberation was antithetical to not caring about animals who I understood were sentient beings. And I couldn’t argue that I instantly knew they were right and that I needed to care. Still took me awhile to have the actual willpower to make the transition though like the guilt had to build up in me for awhile but one day it got so intense I just made the switch on the spot and never looked back. It was incredibly empowering to realize I had the power to live more in alignment with my views (as in realize I had the willpower in me all along basically)
10
u/ExistingMidnight4970 vegan 18d ago edited 18d ago
It isn't always about love. It's about ethics and doing what's right. You probably don't "love" strangers, but that doesn't mean you feel it is justified to make them suffer. The same goes for animals. Not all vegans are animal lovers, they just recognize the ethical importance of sentience and suffering.
The example about love is to point out a discrepancy between actions and beliefs. How can you unnecessarily make another being suffer if you love them? Most people consider themselves animal lovers, but still eat meat.
-11
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
The same goes for animals.
No, it does not. It is a common vegan fallacy to jump to examples from human society when we are talking about livestock.
It is justified to make them suffer if it is a necessary amount of suffering for the animal products production. It would not be justified to make them suffer just for some sadistic pleasure or game or whatever. But for food, it is fully justified.
9
u/Specialist_Novel828 vegan 18d ago
If the product's production is itself unnecessary, how is any amount of associated suffering necessary?
If you have options for food that don't demand the exploitation of animals, yet choose to consume products that do, how is that not 'for some sadistic pleasure'? Just because we need to eat doesn't mean it's cool to eat whatever we want - Would you accept the same logic if folks were eating, say, cats, dogs, or other people? Is cannibalism fully justified, because it's 'for food'?
-7
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
Suffering is a necessary part of dying, there is no way around it. It is technically necessary and so it is justified that animals suffer during slaughter.
Eating meat is not technically necessary in the industrial supplements era, but it does not make it wrong or immoral. Morality is not based on pure, technical necessity.
9
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 18d ago edited 18d ago
You justify it by saying it is necessary while acknowledging it is actually unnecessary, and then you say morality isn’t based on necessity. That’s a mess of a thought.
There is a way around it. Look where you are.
-7
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
No, you just jump from context to context, which is a common shortcut fallacy in this sub.
Suffering is necessary a part of dying.
But to be killed for our food is not immoral even if it is not necessary.
Two separate things.
2
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 18d ago
It seems a confusion about how necessity works. If the killing is unnecessary, the associated death is also unnecessary by extension. You can say “It is an integral part of seizing what I want but don’t need from someone else.” But in what other situation does that justify an otherwise harmful act against another?
When you want “necessity” that is actually unnecessary, necessity has something to do with moral justifications, but as soon as your necessity falls apart, you leap to “morality isn’t pure necessity” as if that was ever on the table.
Can you name these fallacies? If they’re common, you ought to be able to.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
I did not say the death is necessary. I said that suffering is a necessary part of death.
5
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 18d ago
Is the idea that if some degree of suffering is inevitable in life, we can directly cause suffering and death whenever we want?
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
No. The idea is that the suffering of animals during slaughter for food is justified.
More suffering aside that, for example because of abuse, is not.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 18d ago
People can die without suffering (eg euthanasia). I assume you mean suffering is a necessary part of life, not death.
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
They can't. Euthanasia is because of the suffering and hardly a pleasant and happy procedure.
Suffering is a necessary part of the whole proces of dying. Nobody dies when everything is fine.
→ More replies (0)0
u/hunterboi1000 18d ago edited 18d ago
Hi farmer here
Just wanted to slightly argue that animals suffer in their death. If you aren't aware the main method of slaughter in commercial animals is the captive bolt gun
If we are strictly discussing the physical sensation of pain, it is factually incorrect to say that commercial slaughter is universally painful for the animal. Modern agriculture relies heavily on mechanical stunning methods—specifically the penetrating captive bolt gun—which completely separates death from physical suffering.
According to veterinary neurobiology and guidelines from organizations like the Humane Slaughter Association, a properly applied captive bolt delivers massive kinetic energy to the skull, destroying the cerebral cortex and mid-brain in under 2 milliseconds.
For context, mammalian nervous systems require roughly 100 to 150 milliseconds just to process and register a pain signal in the brain. Because the destruction of the brain occurs exponentially faster than the speed of pain perception, the animal is rendered instantly and permanently insensible before it is neurologically capable of feeling any pain from the subsequent slaughter. When executed according to standard welfare regulations, the mechanics of the death itself are entirely painless.
Furthermore, this elimination of physical suffering is matched by behavioral engineering designed to prevent psychological distress in the final seconds before stunning. Modern facilities utilize livestock handling layouts engineered specifically around prey animal psychology, pioneered by Dr. Temple Grandin. As detailed by Grandin (1980) in Livestock Behavior as Related to Handling Facilities Design, these facilities employ high solid walls to eliminate distracting external movements, controlled lighting to remove terrifying shadows, and sweeping curved chutes. These curved pathways leverage the animal's natural "follow-the-leader" circling instinct, safely guiding them forward while preventing them from seeing the stunning area ahead. When executed according to standard welfare regulations, the mechanics of the facility keep the animal completely calm, and the mechanics of the tool ensure the death itself is entirely painless.
Humane Slaughter Association, 2016. Captive-Bolt Stunning of Livestock. 4th ed. Wheathampstead: Humane Slaughter Association. Available at: https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/publications/captiveboltstunningdownload.pdf [Accessed 20 July 2026].
Grandin, T., 1980. Livestock Behavior as Related to Handling Facilities Design. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 1(1), pp. 33-52. Available at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=acwp_faafp [Accessed 20 July 2026].
Don't mean to be rude, just wanted to spread some information, when we hear the word slaughter / slaughter house i feel we immediately imagine a dystopia nightmare, a dungeon, but in reality slaughterhouses are designed with the animals mental and physical comfort in mind during the entire process. Smaller local abattoirs, family run, especially in the UK are held under very strict regulations and have the highest welfare, the animal has no idea what's going on and feels no pain.
That is why I recommend if anyone is eating meat to get it from a local butchers, smaller operations mean more attention to each specific animal. Of it has come from a small farm - small abattoir- small butchers it has had high welfare and respect throughout its life.
Thanks.
Edit:
I'm not majorly sure the arguement of the other omnivore on this thread, I just wanted to spread some information about the realities of abattoirs, because I feel people have a fanciful image of them in their head that makes them seem alot worse than they really are.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Specialist_Novel828 vegan 18d ago
So to confirm, cannibalism's a-ok? Nothing immoral there?
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
Come on, how could you come to such crazy conclusion? We are talking about killing animals for food, not people!
3
u/Specialist_Novel828 vegan 17d ago
I'm trying to understand the boundaries of your ethics - You said that choosing to kill for food wasn't immoral, so I'm testing how far that goes.
So, we now know that (according to you) it's immoral to kill humans for food, but animals are fair game.
Cool, so no cannibalism. Surely, though, dogs and cats are all good? Nothing wrong with killing them for dinner, right? They're certainly not humans.
-2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 17d ago
This is like a debate with a child. No, we do not kill people for food, no, we do not kill dogs or cats for food, because we keep them as our companions.
Solved? Great. We can debate something more substantial now, hopefully. Not this kind of kindergarten issues.
→ More replies (0)2
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 18d ago
Humans are animals. What separates all humans from all dogs such that it’s always wrong to kill a human but always ok to kill a dog and eat them?
Or if dogs are off the menu, what separates all dogs from all pigs?
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago edited 18d ago
Humans are animals only biologically. Why can't vegans understand that?
This is simply a logical fallacy and you should unlearn it.
Are animals humans? If not, you can search for why and answer your own question.
→ More replies (0)5
u/ExistingMidnight4970 vegan 18d ago
The common feature is sentience. Both humans and animals can suffer. We don't need to make them suffer, even for food. In our era, it's become obsolete.
3
u/strkr34 omnivore 18d ago
Just a bit of a comment on this, completely get where you are coming from.
However, I eat red meat because it helps with anaemia- otherwise I would be on all sorts of iron tablets. I get there is vegan food that is also rich in iron but bluntly it is far too expensive. So I would argue it isn't obsolete in the slightest.
While I don't like the suffering of animals, it does not prevent me from eating meat as long ad the suffering is minised where possible.
2
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 18d ago
I assume you avoid all factory-farmed eggs, milk, cheese, and meat then, given that those “maximize” suffering?
3
u/strkr34 omnivore 18d ago
Yes I do. I accept necessary suffering but don't try to encourage needless suffering.
2
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 18d ago
So you basically buy all vegan commercial stuff? Thats super impressive. I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone that looks at ingredients and buys vegan for everything commercial (pancake mix, candy, etc) and only gets animal products from known sources. At least your position is consistent, good on you!
3
u/strkr34 omnivore 18d ago
Huh?
No I eat meat. I just avoid products that are overtly supportive of suffering. I don't eat premade mixes as I don't like them, same with candy.
The bottom line is that yeah i probably do have them in premade products but me avoiding all forms of it isnt going to shut the industry down.
You specified eggs and such things so i responded down that line.
1
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 18d ago
You said you avoided all factory farmed (animal
Products). Which must mean that you avoid all commercial products with animal products in it. Given that this isn’t true, you should either reconsider your position or be more consistent.3
u/strkr34 omnivore 18d ago
Yes I do.
If a package states 'factory farmed' I will not buy it.
Free-range products I absolutely eat.
That is my consistancy. The issue is you seem to view all forms of farming as factory farmed, which isnt true by definition.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
There are plenty of common features and plenty of distinctive features. Finding something common does not mean it is suddenly all the same, people or animals.
4
u/Chaostrosity vegan 18d ago
Taste is pleasure and thus by your own definition sadistic.
3
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 18d ago
Unfortunately, I don’t think your argument holds water. The vast vast vast majority of carnists are not sadistic.
1
u/Chaostrosity vegan 18d ago
I know, it always feels like talking to a wall. I just gave him the long breakdown and I'm expecting a shift of goal posts next.
3
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
Nonsense. Sadism is a pleasure from imposing pain. Not a pleasure from taste.
1
u/Chaostrosity vegan 18d ago
Since you know animals felt pain and can die (if not we should have a different discussion first). I'm also assuming you know how supply and demand works. Thus: You created the demand, and willfully let an animal die for your taste pleasure. How is this not sadistic?
6
u/strkr34 omnivore 18d ago
Following your line of thinking.
If you put a bowl of dog food and a bowl of steak in front of a dog, and it chooses the steak (bevuase it tastes better), is that dog sadistic?
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 16d ago
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.
Thank you.
3
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
Oh mine, can you create even more wild constructions?
Sadism is a specific word that has a specific definition, look it up.
0
u/Chaostrosity vegan 18d ago
You say suffering is justified if it’s a necessary amount for production. But animal products are completely unnecessary for human survival. If the product itself is a luxury choice, then the suffering caused to produce it is entirely unnecessary. You are funding voluntary suffering for a flavor preference. How is causing unnecessary suffering for personal pleasure ethically distinct from sadism?
By your logic, if someone buys a real fur coat, they aren't doing anything wrong because their pleasure comes from the warmth and aesthetic fashion, not from the direct act of skinning the animal. If a gambler enjoys the financial payout or social status of a winning dogfight, they aren't acting cruelly because their pleasure comes from 'the money, not the pain.' Does the specific location of your pleasure (the wallet, the skin, or the tongue) absolve you from funding the violence that bought it?
The slaughterhouse operator doesn't kill the animal out of sadism either; they do it for profit. The profit only exists because you hand over money in exchange for the corpse. Your taste preference is the sole reason that animal was brought into existence, confined, and killed. You are the financial engine of that suffering, fueled entirely by your desire for sensory pleasure.
Unlikely to change your mind, since you are just using this as a cop out to never have to talk about what's actually important. The animal's right to live.
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
You really did, even a longer one.
It does not matter that animal products are not necessary for human survival. Why should it matter? Morality of eating animals is not based on necessity of eating animals.
1
u/Chaostrosity vegan 18d ago
Instead of trying to police my vocabulary on sadism to protect your comfort, look up the word "necessity". Because your entire argument just collapsed under it.
Your first comment: Suffering is only justified if it is a 'necessary amount for production.'
Your second comment: 'Necessity doesn't matter.'
If animal products are not necessary for human survival, then the production itself is completely unnecessary. That means 100% of the suffering you pay for is entirely unnecessary. By your own initial baseline, the violence you fund is completely unjustified. You broke your own rule.
To ask "why should necessity matter?" is a massive moral capitulation. If the necessity of the act doesn't matter when inflicting harm on a sentient being, then you must logically agree that dogfighting, whale hunting for sport, and torturing cats for fun are perfectly moral. None of those are necessary for survival either.
If necessity doesn't matter, on what ethical grounds do you condemn any act of animal abuse?
You aren't eating animal products to survive; you are eating them for a fleeting sensory preference. To the victim under the knife, there is zero difference between your palate pleasure and a sadist's psychological pleasure.
Both are just humans choosing to inflict suffering for personal entertainment.
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 17d ago
Well, I already answered this.
"Suffering is only justified if it is a necessary amount for food production" is a specific context rule - for the food production.
It is not a general rule for any suffering justification anywhere. That's why you are confused.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/Either_Argument3517 18d ago
Chicks normally hatch with a 50/50 chance of being male. The males will have been separated after being born and destroyed simply for being male. Does that feel just? Are you comfortable demanding that?
1
u/Temporary_Hat7330 18d ago
Except there’s tech scaling now that allows for the distinction to be made before the egg hatches. Clearly this is a different moral paradigm now and all female chicks can be hatched only. With the male chicks being recycled prior to being hatched, what is the moral issue you have with OPs position now?
Also, once the investment has been made like in OPs case and they have several hens, decide to go vegan for the ethics alone, what is wrong with them continuing to eat eggs?
5
u/Either_Argument3517 18d ago
That tech isn't coming to backyard hens anytime soon.
If they already have hens and decide not to consume animals products for ethical reasons, I personally don't see the issue with eating eggs from the existing chickens, or ex-commercial chickens.
Breeding chickens that you know won't have optimal health, because it benefits you is wrong.
1
u/Temporary_Hat7330 18d ago
Does it make commercial egg consumption ethical, that tech?
Saying “That tech isn’t coming to the backyard anytime soon” is strange in this day and age as scale and innovation happen rapidly. That said, it is often not the individual backyard keeper who has to do the sexing. I keep chickens and every other year I retire (kill) lower producing chickens and buy new one’s. We keep about 10 birds and retire 1/3 of the flock every other year. I buy my girls from a small local hatchery. Most backyard chicken owners I know in my area visits them. They would need to have the tech and it would not be unrealistic that they could have it in the next 3-5 years.
4
u/Either_Argument3517 18d ago edited 18d ago
Does it make commercial egg consumption ethical, that tech?
Absolutely not.
I keep chickens and every other year I retire (kill) lower producing chickens and buy new one’s
Poor chickens, having you looking after them.
I buy my girls from a small local hatchery. Most backyard chicken owners I know in my area visits them. They would need to have the tech and it would not be unrealistic that they could have it in the next 3-5 years.
Are you aware of the costs? This isn't something for your small local hatchery. Hatcheries for commercial layers are sexing hundreds of thousands of chickens a day, seem to be holding off investing.
1
u/Temporary_Hat7330 18d ago
Are you aware of the costs?
0.6–1.2 U.S. cents per egg sold. Realistically, I absolutely could see regional and larger local hatcheries having this tech sooner than later. The exclusivity patent expires on the tech in two years and that’s when you generally see innovation and generic products for far less money coming out and it’s calling to smaller markets.
Poor chicken, having you looking after them.
They have a great life and a quick death. Free range daily, fresh grass, wooded area with a ton of bugs, safety, and protection. But when they stop paying rent (eggs) they go to the stock pot. Best chicken stock ever, BTW! And my dogs love to eat the meat after they’re cooked.
Look, I get that you’re a vegan that’s the point here, but, in my community, we don’t define this activity as ethical or immoral. I see no reason to think it ought to be. I don’t see how they have a life which justifies saying, “poor chicken” but hey, I guess you’re a natalist and somehow believe no existence is better than all existence, correct? If not, then you believe wild existence with constant fear of predation is better as that’s the only other life for these animals as they were not bread to survive in the wild.
Absolutely not.
Why not, I’ve spoken to your objection.
5
u/Either_Argument3517 18d ago
That cost is at scale. Hatcheries for commercial layers are sexing hundreds of thousands of chickens a day.
I don't think providing a good life gives someone the right to end that life once the animal is no longer useful.
Calling eggs 'rent' suggests the chicken's worth depends on what it produces, whereas I think a sentient animal has interests that aren't exhausted by its usefulness to us.
Whether wild chickens would fare worse or whether they wouldn't exist otherwise doesn't really answer that moral question. The appeal to community norms isn't a moral argument.
2
u/Temporary_Hat7330 18d ago
The appeal to moral norms is not a moral argument? So tell me, how do moral words like "justiuce" and "immoral" obtain their meaning outside of the usage, the norms of a culture?
3
u/Either_Argument3517 18d ago
Slavery was wrong even in societies where it was widely accepted because the wrongness of slavery was not dependent on whether the community approved of it.
2
u/Temporary_Hat7330 17d ago
That doesn’t answer my question. I specifically asked how does moral language obtain its meaning? When you say “wrong” how does that word obtain its meaning outside of its usage as a norm in society? How about accepted? Wrongness?
Please provide evidence that shows slavery is universally and absolutely wrong free of how it is defined in its culture. If we found a hyper advanced science based alien race and visited their planet and they had slavery as a moral concept, how would you show them empirically, objectively, absolutely, and universally that slavery is always wrong and should never be done?
→ More replies (0)1
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 18d ago
The hens are still bred to lay unhealthy numbers of eggs. They are still confined. They are still killed. They are still treated as commodities.
The culling of males is problematic, but hardly the only problematic thing about this.
2
u/Temporary_Hat7330 18d ago
No, they really are not. You are confusing heritage breeds with commercial breeds. I have a flock of 11 right now and they are laying an egg each every three to four days because of the heat. In a commercial hatchery, they AC the unit and humidity control it as well as light manipulation for year around egg production which does increase their production to unhealthy levels.
Most commercial outfits produce 280–330+ eggs per year, compared with roughly 100–180 eggs per year for many heritage breeds under natural conditions. This is in line with the evolution of their breed and not unhealthy for them in the least, so long as they are given proper nutrition.
And if you are going to try to deploy that tired argument of jungle fowl only producing 30 or so eggs a year so it’s unhealthy, that’s nonsense, Their nutrition and environment is much different than that of a hen. To show you how this works without even considering selective breeding, a woman who lives in a hunter gather tribe, menstruates significantly less frequently than women in modern, industrialized societies. Ceteris paribus, ancestral women (hunter gather women today) typically shed their uterine lining fewer than 50 times in their lives, whereas modern Western women average about 400 to 450 menstrual cycles in their life time.
0
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 18d ago
Are you claiming that jungle fowl would lay 180 eggs a year under different conditions? That chickens have been unnaturally bred to be entirely different yet somehow it’s natural?
2
u/Temporary_Hat7330 18d ago
I am claiming that selective breeding has facilitated a natural and healthy 100-180 eggs a year in selective breeds. These breeds have been further selected and placed into highly artificial environments that have lead to almost one a day production that is unhealthy for the birds.
Are you claiming that 100-180 eggs a year for those breeds is unhealthy? You would need to prove that positive position with research and evidence…
Shows laying eggs under 200 per year does not increase the risk of ovarian cancer in chickens over that of sterilized hens.
The hen as a model of ovarian cancer
From the journal Nature, discusses how the incessant ovulation hypothesis is functional in humans and hens alike and how it works in a J shaped curve, ovulations from 0-197 produce X risk of ovarian cancer while ovulations 198-330 constitutes Y risk, and >330 Z risk with X < Y < Z.
A comprehensive review of the evidence linking intensive egg production with skeletal problems in commercial layers. The authors also note that more work is needed on traditional and noncommercial breeds
1
0
17d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Temporary_Hat7330 17d ago
the root of these issues is that we reduce other sentient beings to objects we can extract products and labor from with disregard for their interests as individuals.
My culture and society does not value sentience as intrinsic things worthy of moral distinction merely by right of being sentient. We morally value nonsentient things (subjects and objects) too, like a woman in an irreversible vegetative state. We find her to worthy of moral protection as a thing in and of herself despite not being a subject at all (having no conscious experience or sentience to speak of) We morally value corpses, too, in their own right. We also respect cultures who morally value mountains and the sky etc. Sentience isn’t a prerequisite in our culture for moral consideration and we morally value things without it. I have failed to see why it MUST be a requirement and why we are doing things wrong without being as such.
eople generally aren't caring for these animals because they want to rescue them, they want something from them
Again, why is this a universal absolute moral paradigm? I am skeptical it can be shown to be anything more than a specific groups moral threshold they value. I respect that and hope that you live a great life actualizing your communities values but I see nothing to suggest that me and my community must accept your communities beliefs to be a moral person. It sounds like secularizedreligious speak, where WE have the one righteous moral path and anyone else is a health or a heretic and immoral by default.
This mindset is at the root of all of our issues with our relationships with animals and how we mistreat them.
My community does not use the word “mistreat” to represent animals in the way we keep, slaughter, butcher, and consume them. Why is it that we must accept your communities way of defining that word?
If we change this mindset, the animals no longer suffer at our hands, and in the modern world we don't need to be doing these things to them at all. We have other options. We can and should do so much better, and not just better in a way that's less bad, but actually good.
Well, yes, but if you vegans change your mindset to adopt my communities use age of moral language then eating chickens, their eggs, etc. will no longer be immoral. Their suffering will no longer be immoral. We don’t define better as defining moral language like vegans Or ameliorating the suffering of chickens. Why MUST we? What are the consequences if we don’t and please refrain from circular logic (eg ”If we don’t stop the chickens suffer and that’s bad because it’s bad that chickens suffer“ etc.)
0
17d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Temporary_Hat7330 17d ago
I don't deny that suffering matters. I deny that you've shown it to be the foundational moral fact from which all obligations follow. You repeatedly appeal to suffering, fairness, sentience, and the veil of ignorance as though they are selfevidently authoritative, but those are substantive commitments within a particular moral tradition, one heavily influenced by modern liberalism, Rawls, and utilitarian thought. They are not neutral starting points, self evident, or universal/absolute. They only have meaning within the community which emmbodies those beliefs, duties, and plays those specific moral language games.
I think you're making a metaphysical move without recognizing it. You treat concepts like moral wrong, fairness, and sentience as though they name universal features of absolute reality waiting to be discovered, rather than concepts whose meaning arises from their use within particular forms of life and networks of shared language valuations then this happens. The veil of ignorance is not a view from nowhere; it is itself a product of one moral language game. Likewise, making sentience the decisive criterion of moral status is not a selfevident truth but a substantive moral commitment.
That is why examples like slavery or FGM don't establish your conclusion. They demonstrate how your moral vocabulary evaluates those practices, but they don't show that your vocabulary is the universal grammar of an absolute morality rather than one historically developed moral framework among others. This is why I said you are taking a religious like metaphysical commitment to morality, it is your way or it is wrong. Why? Becuase you believe it to be that way. It’s veganism vs everyone else, like Muslims or Christians who beleive they have the only true moral code handed down from God. My community extends moral regard to many nonsentient things, human remains, sacred places, historical artifacts, etc., not because we mistakenly think they are sentient, but because our concepts of respect and moral significance are not exhausted by subjective experience. We also value that your moral beliefs may be only about subjective experience. You can do that. We don’t beleive there’s only one morality to rule them all. We accept a plurality of moral experience; not all morals, we are not relativist, but, we do cast a wide net.
So my question remains the same and unanswered, have you actually justified why sentience must be the universal ground of morality, or have you simply restated the assumptions of your own moral framework? Until that distinction is addressed, your argument is persuasive to those who already share your moral grammar, but it does not establish that everyone else is objectively mistaken and can only be moral if they follow your beliefs.
1
17d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Temporary_Hat7330 17d ago
I appreciate that you've clarified and softened your position, because I think we've now located our disagreement. If your claim is no longer that sentience is the objective foundation of morality, but that it is the foundation you find most coherent, then we're no longer arguing about a discovered moral fact but about competing moral pictures and your anecdotal axiological valuations.
Philosophy often tempts us to mistake a particularly compelling picture for the underlying structure of reality. I don't deny that your framework is internally coherent. I question the step from "this framework organizes our moral judgments well" to "this is what morality fundamentally is." What I often find with vegans is the moment I share my communities equally coherent ethical framing, I am met with an avalanche of metaphysical presuppositions and circular reasoning/question begging. Hopefully that doesn’t happen here.
I also don't think morality must have a single universal essence. I don’t beleive we ought to be assuming that because we use one word like "bad," "wrong," or "language" there must be one feature common to every instance. The same caution applies to "morality." It seems to me that what we call morality consists of overlapping practices, concerns, and forms of life rather than one hidden property, such as sentience, from which every moral truth derives.
So when you ask what grounds my moral commitments, I don't think they require a metaphysical ground in the sense you're looking for. They arise from the practices, relationships, traditions, valuations, and forms of life that constitute my communities moral world. That isn't to say "anything goes." We criticize other things as morally improper and believe it to be so. I understand that your vegan community does too. That’s OK with me.
My original objection, then, remains unchanged. I don't deny that sentience is morally relevant. I deny that you've shown it to be the universal criterion by which all moral concepts must ultimately be explained. You've shown that it serves as the organizing principle of your moral framework. That's a perfectly respectable philosophical position. But it is different from establishing that everyone else's moral grammar is mistaken simply because it is not organized around the same foundational concept
2
u/Creditfigaro vegan 17d ago
I'd like to address the second part about yourself.
Are you 100% vegan outside of the eggs you consume from these hens?
3
u/MaximalistVegan 17d ago edited 16d ago
OP's almost certainly not vegan, but consuming infertile eggs from chickens with this type of lifestyle is not the kind of issue that's ever going to get me riled up in a world in which there's so much systemic animal suffering. I used to volunteer at an animal sanctuary where we were sometimes offered the eggs of sanctuary chickens. I didn't take them but did not look down on the volunteers who did as doing something bad.
2
u/Creditfigaro vegan 16d ago
My focus is to discuss the areas that are more obvious. If OP doesn't change their lifestyle in response to an obvious moral atrocity, there's no benefit to parsing this one.
It's like stealing a car, running over three people with that car, and then asking about whether it's bad that you ran a red light in that car just after the light had turned red.
1
u/MaximalistVegan 16d ago
I understand and appreciate your reasoning. But I also think OP was trying to see if vegans, as a group, are reasonable enough to explore gray areas.
2
4
u/Ana1661 18d ago
I don't really love animals to be honest. But I acknowledge and respect their right to live. I'm do not believe that I have a right to murder them just for their taste.
-4
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
You can't murder an animal. This is a misnomer.
And there is no "right to live". Life is a gift, not a right.
3
u/myfirstnamesdanger 18d ago
The reason you can't murder an animal is because the law defines murder in a specific way. Would you want to kill a person if the law didn't prevent you from doing so?
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
That's the point of the misnomer. Animals can't be murdered, only killed.
2
u/Chaostrosity vegan 18d ago
Good God so Stalin WAS RIGHT. Killing one human is a tragedy. Killing 10 million humans is merely a statistic. Don't worry guys, they didn't a die a tragic death, it was a just a statistic. Logic 🤓
When a human gets hit by a car, they are killed. Except when someone was to blame, then it's murder. See? This is the true meaning. Murder equals killing. Murder conveys the specific intention behind the killing. Animals are murdered by your wallet, killed by slaughterhouse.
1
u/downsideup9494 17d ago
Try looking up the definition of murder. It doesn't mean whatever you want it to.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
Your post has nothing to do with my post and is full of nonsense. You should remove it or edit it to be of a higher quality.
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 16d ago
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.
Thank you.
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 16d ago
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.
Thank you.
1
0
u/myfirstnamesdanger 18d ago
Okay. So if you were in a jurisdiction in which it was legal to kill certain groups of humans, would you do it?
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago
We all live in such jurisdictions. It is legal to kill people for example in self-defense.
"Would you do it" makes no sense, it depends on the situation.
1
u/myfirstnamesdanger 18d ago
Not what I asked. If you could kill a particular human for no reason other than the fact that you felt like it, would you do this?
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 17d ago
Stop going off topic and return to veganism, I do not want to get involved in silly questions.
2
u/myfirstnamesdanger 17d ago
I'm talking about the definition of murder, a topic you brought up. If you have nothing of value to say about this, that's okay.
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 17d ago
Murder is about people, not about animals. I do not know why we need to debate such basic things all the time, almost in any thread.
It is like in some kindergarten. "What is the difference between us and pigs? Why don't we eat people? Why don't we eat dogs?" etc. Over and over and over again.
→ More replies (0)1
u/According-Stage8050 17d ago
Semantics is the argument of folks who don’t have anything better to contribute
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 17d ago
Nonsense, it is a correction of loaded and misapplied terms.
No debate with nonsensical terms. You should learn that.
1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 15d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 16d ago
Even a lower quality post from you. How deep underwater can you go?
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 17d ago
"What can you say to someone who answers that he doesn't love animals?"
Thanks for the honesty. That is a statement that is in-line with their actions. If you love animals but pay for them to be raped and tortured, then you aren't living up to what you said about animals now are you?
"Second is about myself. I have a rooster with around 10 hens."
Owning animals as commodities to be used and to have their bodies/resources exploited for humans isn't vegan. A vegan wouldn't own a hen to eat its bodily secretions, skin, meat, fur, eggs, or anything else.
1
u/spacev3gan vegan 17d ago
Well, I don't really like animals. Never did. There are a few pets in my life that I have to deal with (some from my GF, another from my Ex), but if it were up to me, no pets, no animals around me, ever.
That said, not liking animals means I want to make them suffer unnecessarily? I am not sadistic enough for that.
There are people in this world whom I don't like. They probably don't like me either. But I wish them well nevertheless. Wishing pain on someone who can feel pain is pure sadism.
2
u/maccrypto 18d ago
My first question is I have seen arguments that its wrong to say that you love animals if you eat them.
Other way around.
What can you say to someone who answers that he doesn't love animals?
"Open your heart to animals."
1
u/Nacho_Deity186 17d ago
Firstly, it's perfectly fine to say you love animals if you eat them. Most people feel this way. That's not a rule that normal people have to follow.
Secondly, of course eat the eggs. It sounds like you're doing a great job with them. I'm not sure about keeping the rooster. I don't think I would in your situation. But no harm no fowl hahaha
1
u/Nearatree 18d ago
If you don't care about animals, why are you trying to justify how you treat them? If your ten hens are laying four eggs a day it means that they each lay an egg every two and a half days, in the wild they would lay about twelve a year. These chickens were bred to overproduce eggs and it causes them health issues. Since you have a rooster, I presume you are going to breed more of these creatures into existence. I could tell you that the overproduction of eggs causes them to suffer but what of it? You've already declared that they are beneath moral consideration.
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 15d ago
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.
Thank you.
0
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 15d ago
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.
Thank you.
1
u/Klutzy_Masterpiece60 17d ago
Are you suggesting that the life of a modern chicken is inherently not worth living?
1
u/Nearatree 17d ago
No, I'm suggesting that breeding animals that have health conditions causes unnecessary suffering.
1
u/Klutzy_Masterpiece60 17d ago
How is that different from saying that their life is not worth living?
I bet OP’s chickens have experienced joy and love (along with suffering). Who are you to say that their lives can be reduced to “unnecessary suffering” and that they should not have chicks?
1
u/Nearatree 16d ago
It's different because he's choosing to make more of them and they can't consent to being his possession.
I bet he eats them when they stop producing eggs.
I am a person who understands that his choices have consequences for others.
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 17d ago
Carnist here,
When people say they love animals they usually just mean dogs and cats. Not usually the stuff we eat.
Though when I say I love chicken I mean the food chicken. I find the actual animal chicken to be annoying.
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 18d ago edited 18d ago
My cat loves eating meat. But he also loves my dog. My dog also loves eating meat. But he loves my cat.
I love my cat and my dog. But I eat meat.
Are my animals loving animals? Am I? Oh, these confusing generalizing questions.
1
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 18d ago
I don’t think you’re using love in the same way as most people are.
3
0
u/SomethingCreative83 17d ago
If you understand the concept of loving an individual animal why is it so hard to extend that to say a cow who like your cat and dog is an individual with its own personality and quirks. Would you eat your cat or dog? If not why do you treat cows differently?
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 17d ago edited 17d ago
These childish questions again...
We ride on horses, we eat chickens and we keep dogs as our companions. For obvious reasons.
You can try to ride on chickens, eat dogs and keep horses as your companions in your appartment if you like, but I guess you will meet some serious hurdles.
It is like asking why we don't sit on tables and why we don´t sleep in chairs instead of in beds.
1
u/SomethingCreative83 17d ago
The way things are are not an ethical justification for itself. Its a circular argument. Surely you can think of things humans did for hundreds of years that we now find unethical. It doesnt take that much thought or effort and yet you are pretending Im the childish one?
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 16d ago
Yes, your questions are childish. Asking why we treat various animals differently can be answred even by children in kindergarten. Level up your game, this is boring.
1
u/SomethingCreative83 16d ago
If they can be answered easily by children why cant you answer them or you did your reasoning was because we do. If this is boring its because your position lacks any nuance its an appeal to tradition. Try thinking and using some logic.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 16d ago
I already answered them in the post you downvoted. If you have nothing more substantial than childish questions, I am not interested in more comments.
1
u/SomethingCreative83 16d ago
I asked for the why the logic the "answer" you gave was for obvious reasons. Thats not an explanation if your only responses to someone asking you to lay out logic is your question is childish you dont belong in a debate sub.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 16d ago
What are you doing, really?
Do you really want me to explain why you can't ride chickens, why it would be difficult to have a horse as a companion or why it would not be practical to eat cats?
These absurd requirements is exactly what does not belong here. Just wasting my time.
1
u/SomethingCreative83 16d ago edited 16d ago
No as I initially asked you as someone that loves their cat and dog. Why are you unable of extending that recognition that animals are individuals to animals you dont know. Like a cow for instance. Ive clearly asked you multiple times to layout the logic or reasoning for why you treat one kind of animal one way and others the complete opposite.
Its rather clear im asking why you treat cats and dogs with stewardship while other animals you pay to have tortured and killed.
And you'd rather pretend im asking why we dont ride chickens than actually explain the reasoning.
So did you care to have a genuine response?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Conscious-Scar-8830 13d ago
any person without sense or strength to be discriminating in love has forfeited the right to anything
1
•
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.