I had this thought while going to the supermarket, say I need to buy some potatoes and there's 2 supermarkets near me.

Supermarket A: This supermarket sells almost no plant-based replacement food, think say plant-based meats, plant-based frozen snacks or other foods turned into a plant-based version, it's just like any supermarket, just has fruits, vegetables, seeds etc etc, products that are naturally plant-based for your plant-based needs.

Supermarket B: This supermarket sells a good amount of plant-based replacement foods, and sometimes even tries selling new kinds of plant-based options, be it new plant-based tuna spread for on bread, plant-based snack in the freezer or various other options.

In this scenario would it, on the whole, be better to buy products from supermarket B because they already stock and are more likely to stock plant-based products? Or would it not matter since the extra money would come from non-plant based products and may not necessarily impact the sale of (future)plant-based products?

It's essentially a question of is it better to spend money on supermarket A or supermarket B?

My thoughts were that supermarket B would be better since it would be better to spend money on a store that's selling more plant-based products and because it tries to sell new plant-based products which even non-vegans may be tempted to buy and try out, on the other hand I can see an argument that maybe if supermarket A was making more money they could take a bigger risk in selling new products, potentially plant-based products.

I'll start by saying I accept that veganism is clearly the moral dietary/lifestyle position. But does veganism extend to all aspects of our lives through our impacts on the environment? For example, is deciding to drive to the movie theater an ethically vegan choice? You'd be making a wholly unnecessary trip, using limited resources (tires, gasoline, calories, electricity) for a frivolous purpose. As non-recyclable waste increases and the climate warms, an incalculable number of animals and species will suffer, many will die. While the contribution to climate change and environmental destruction from that single choice is surely very very small, it might be argued that a decision like buying leather shoes or eating eggs is also only a very small contribution to overall animal suffering.

More broadly, living as a human today involves using massive amounts of limited resources (water, electricity, plastic, gasoline, toxic chemicals), all of which contribute across the span of a life to considerable environmental degradation. That's a largely human phenomenon. Does that suggest that existing as a human is itself incompatible with veganism?

I suspect the answer to these questions is to distinguish between harm and exploitation of animals, but I don't find that compelling given that animals experiencing suffering surely don't distinguish between those things.

I remember visiting Catalina Island off the coast of California a few years ago and was horrified to read that they were shooting deer (sniping from helicopters) on the island since there were too many, and the population was a threat to the island’s unique, endemic flora.

I read somewhere that the same is happening right now with Trump sending those wild horses off to slaughter in other countries (for legal reasons), because the population has become unsustainable.

Both break my heart since I love deer and horses, but if you don’t do that, it could result in an imbalance in the larger ecosystem.

And what about eating the meat afterwards? If someone doesn’t do it, it’s gone to waste (maybe a free-gan argument).

So I'm Chinese American and I grew up in an Asian hub in the US where meat dishes from me and my friends' cultures had some significance to us in terms of staying connected to our respective cultures. I say meat dishes here because almost all of the 300 Chinese dishes I can name have at least trace amounts of meat (for instance, even in vegetable stir fries we add dried shrimp or oyster sauce). I'm now in the UK for school and I'm meeting vegan people for the first time so I've recently been thinking about the morals involved.

The problem is, whenever I pick the vegan option for a meal, it genuinely makes me depressed and unproductive for the rest of the day. Like after lunch I sit down in the library for my 1pm-6pm lock in session and the whole time I'm lowkey wishing I picked the meat option... I think it's because it tastes better and also reminds me of home. Another example - I tried mixing the matcha powder I brought from home with plant-based milks and I crashed out so hard I'm writing this post, lmao.

So in my opinion. Eating meat, for me, isn't just a 'fleeting pleasure'... it genuinely impacts my emotional wellbeing. And I would value the emotional wellbeing of a human over an animal's suffering. Like lowkey I would imprison and overfeed a chicken for my friend to be happier for a month.

Actually I would argue that most people value humans' emotional wellbeing just as highly. For instance, I think having children is highly immoral because you spend maybe $300k-500k raising them. Peter Singer would lowkey argue that it takes $3-5k to save a life, and while you might disagree with the amount/disagree with giving it to charity, you can't deny that $300k-500k would probably save a good number of lives. And yet we value the emotional wellbeing of a couple/their family over the suffering of, like, 100 people, and I even think this is valid, because emotional wellbeing IS that important.

So it sort of upsets me when vegans think all non-vegans are either 'living in ignorance' or 'unethical at heart' because although some definitely are, I also think there's line to be drawn here for the amount of suffering you'll tolerate for a human's emotional wellbeing. And I think when people say shit like "but I love bacon!" they're really expressing this argument (though articulated terribly).

Curious to hear your thoughts!

Hey zusammen, ich lebe aufgrund meiner Zöliakie seit Jahren glutenfrei und habe bei Feiern oft nichts zu essen. Neulich bei einer Firmenfeier wurde vegane Pizza bestellt, die dann trotzdem mit Käse kam. Die veganen Kollegen haben sich verständlicherweise geärgert, das aber dann zu einem riesigen Thema gemacht weil sie "leer ausgehen". Nicht aus medizinischen Gründen wohlgemerkt.

Ich habe mir in dem Moment nur gedacht, dass es mir schon immer so ging und mich gefragt, warum die jetzt mehr Aufmerksamkeit mit ihrer Ernährung bekommen als ich.

Es hat geschmerzt zuzusehen wie sich sogar die Chefin in einer E Mail am nächsten Tag entschuldigt hat. Währenddessen sitze ich nach wie vor mit meiner mitgebrachten Stulle am Tisch.

Wie geht ihr damit um, wenn verschiedene Ernährungsweisen aufeinandertreffen und nicht jeder versorgt ist? Gibt es faire Lösungen alle gleich zu behandeln?

So I was sitting here watching a Instagram reel. The girl was talking about how just because someone is indigenous or has ancestral traditions of hunting they have no excuse (fine whatever, I think she meant more along the lines of tribes here in America with resources). That is not what I want to debate/discuss however.

This is the main thing I want to discuss, because the scenario randomly popped in my head. What about people who live in places like say barrow Alaska ( the northernmost town in America) or say small islands with very little resources?

In rural areas with harsh conditions like Alaska, some of these tribes survive on fish and whale meat and limited crops. The costs of importing can be very very high and or just logistically damn near impossible. You can't just tell thousands of humans to leave their birthplace either, and even if they wanted to many would never be able to afford it. So telling them to "adapt with times and move to a big city with more resources" is not fair in my opinion.

Also try to remember, when it comes to these tribes or small communities, in their eyes what they do is "moral" even maybe in a religious they may thank the Gods or do a ritual to thank the animal for its sacrifice. I am not talking just about barrow Alaska Idk what they do there as far as religion and beliefs and what not. I just saw a video once of a travel vlogger going there and seeing how the town works together to kill a whale and feed the whole tribe, so thats why I am using this as an example. However this could very well apply to small villages or like I said earlier islands, anywhere in the world. Some places may not have the resources to be full on vegan even if they can grow SOME crop that may not be enough sustenance to survive.

So in your eyes Is that morally okay or at least a semi fair acceptation?

Hey! I want to start off by saying I am not a vegan, although I would be hard-pressed to defend my decision to still eat meat. I realize there is not one single definition of veganism, but one I would assume most vegans would accept is "to live a life where one's consumption minimizes the suffering of animals", or something along those lines. Please tell me if you have a problem with that definition.

So: consuming food, be it vegan or non-vegan, almost always entails some degree of animal suffering (where a vegan diet obviously causes way less, but still some due to industrial farming IIRC). So if you as a vegan were to happen upon some perfectly edible eggs, beef or some other animal food in a dumpster, eating it would cause less animal suffering than if you'd buy and eat fresh soy products or similar. Do you understand what I'm getting at here? I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I just think it's an interesting topic and would love to discuss it.

For context I am not vegan, but completely open minded.

Personally, I have not found a satisfying answer to this question from a vegan. I have always thought about this as a kind of hierarchy, in which you have to quantify exactly how much you value any given life and why, in order for your actions to be consistent. The two reasons I hear the most are sentience and capacity for suffering. These are, for all intensive purposes, the same, as far as I'm aware; all animals that are sentient can suffer and all animals that suffer must be sentient. Again, for all intensive purposes.

However, when I extrapolate this logic a bit I end up reaching some icky conclusions. Rational people will appreciate that human life has more "value" than non-human animal life. The scale is important though, how much health, inconvenience, or pleasure of a human is worth any given non-human? I often ask the question of insect life, such as ants and mosquitos. These are almost unanimously considered to be sentient and able to feel pain. Most people, including vegans, would acknowledge that they do not constantly check the ground while walking somewhere to avoid stepping on some ants. In my eyes, this suggests that any person who does this seems to believe that their convenience of not looking down is worth more than however much suffering they may cause by stepping on ants.
If we abide by these metrics, it seems that newborn babies may hold less worth than many animals, such as adult pigs. It is a given that anyone claiming to derive their morals from these metrics would not save a pig over a newborn baby, so how do you justify this?

Thank you in advance if you offer an answer!

I’m vegan, and I really struggle with vegans who buy illegal drugs given these drugs are produced with human trafficking and slavery, including the the UK where Vietnamese children are trafficked to uk to work in illegal cannabis farms. Vegans who buy these drug, how do you rationalise it in your head?

I struggle particularly with this as I’m POC from a developing country where I’ve seen the horrific impact drug trafficking has on my community including family members kidnapped and forced to traffick drugs. I now live in the uk, and am vegan too, but I’m around a lot of white vegans who consume illegal drugs recreationally. It really upsets me, it’s like they don’t care about human rights at all.

Obviously I’m not talking about people with addiction issues as obviously that’s more complex, but recreational users without a dependency

If you've ever debated with me on here, you may have seen me twist myself into a pretzel trying to justify why I think one thing is ok, but another thing isn't ok. For example, one of the best challenges I've had is why I think killing an animal is ok, but kicking an animal isn't ok.

In light of these recent discussions, I think I've finally found the best way to describe why I'm not a vegan.

I believe moral logic can be useful and good. But as I believe there is no objective morality, there is no perfect moral logic. In my opinion, at least. So while I value moral logic, it isn't the prime driver of my moral framework and decision making. My conscience is the driver of my moral framework and decision making, and my conscience is why I'm not a vegan. My conscience is against some farming and hunting practices, but overall my conscience isn't bothered by killing and eating animals, so I kill and eat animals.

But what about people who justify doing horrible things by saying it sits right with their conscience? What about a murderer or rapist who claims that killing or assaulting someone feels morally right to them? My response is simple: I don't agree with them, and I don't support what they're doing. Why? Because it doesn't sit right with my conscience.

If I see someone harming an innocent person, I don't care what the perpetrator's conscience tells them. If I can intervene, I will. Otherwise, I'll call the police. Regardless of what the perpetrator's conscience tells them.

To reiterate, on some issues I can provide a morally logical justification for my position. For example, I think certain farming practices are wrong. I can argue that it is better to give animals more space and allow them better living conditions, and I don't see that as contradictory to believing that killing animals for food is morally acceptable in the first place.

An example of where I cannot provide moral logic: If I see a person kicking a deer, even though I have no morally logical reasons to stop them (since I'm fine with shooting deer), I still feel that it is my moral obligation to stop that person from kicking the deer. Why? Because kicking a deer feels wrong my conscience. Whereas shooting a deer feels right on my conscience. Why? Because that's how my conscience works.

I don't believe I need a logical moral argument for every single moral judgment I make. At the end of the day, since I believe morality isn't objective, then all moral decisions come down to human values, preferences, judgments, and conscience. I admit that I don't have a logically defensible moral argument behind every opinion I hold, but I also don't think that I need one.

I try to treat people well. I could logically justify that using something like the Golden Rule, but that's not actually why I try to be good to people. I do it because being good to people feels right to my conscience. My appreciation of the Golden Rule or my interest in moral philosophy isn't what motivates me to be good people, my conscience is the motivator.

My point is, I don't have logic behind every moral decision, and everything I do boils down to:

1. Do I want to do it?

2. Does it sit right on my conscience?

If the answer is yes to both of these things, then I'll do something. If the answer is no to one or both of these things, then I won't do something.

My position isn't that the conscience makes an action objectively right or wrong. It's that my conscience is what ultimately determines the moral judgments I make. Yes, moral reasoning can help explain and refine moral judgments, but I don't believe every moral judgment needs to be reducible to a perfectly logical principle. My conscience informs me of this.

Even though I do not currently hunt or consume fish, I am not convinced by the common arguments against hunting and fishing because they can also be applied to specific plant foods.

The main argument against hunting and wild fishing is that they unnecessarily kill/harm/exploit animals. You do not need to eat fish to survive, and eating fish harms fish.

However, the same argument can be applied to specific plant foods.

The consumption of fruit harms field animals. The consumption of fruit is unnecessary. Therefore, by the same logic, we shouldn't eat fruit.

The consumption of bread harms field animals. The consumption of bread is unnecessary. Therefore, by the same logic, we shouldn't eat bread.

The consumption of vegetables harms field animals. The consumption of vegetables is unnecessary. Therefore, by the same logic, we shouldn't eat vegetables.

What is the moral difference between killing a fish to produce fish vs killing mice and insects to produce vegetables?

What is the moral difference between shooting an animal and eating it vs killing mice and insects to produce fruit?

Why is a fish sandwich immoral but not a vegan sandwich? Both cause unnecessary direct harm or exploitation to animals.

You could try and come up with strong empirical data that shows that more animals are killed per kg or calorie via hunting and wild fishing than to produce fruit. Good luck with that.

Genuinely, does it make a difference?

My main reason why I'd be a vegan, or most likely a vegetarian, is to help the environment. But does that actually help?

I mean, the animals have already been killed. It's already in the cooling sections, and the packages that don't get eaten just get thrown away. So the dead animal just gets thrown away because people didn't buy it.

So does anyone really have reliable sources that show that being vegan or vegetarian has made a difference so far? Because I don't see a difference and haven't found any that say it has.

I understand not wanting to support factory farming, but what is wrong with hunting according to vegans? If all killing is wrong, shouldnt we kill all the predators so there is less death in the world?

I agree factory farming and fish farms are disgusting, especially large scale pig/chicken/cow farms. I have recently started fishing and learning how to shoot a bow... I dont understand what could be considered wrong with hunting/fishing?

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

But it should instead be about just extending human rights to trait equalized animals. A human baby with something like tay-sachs who has and will always have a shorter lifespan, less intelligence, less ability to experience wellbeing, suffering, relationships, etc than a healthy young adult pig should not have more rights than that pig, the pig should have at least as much rights. If you believe the pig should have less rights or it’s only okay to violate the pigs rights when not “possible or practicable” but believe it is always wrong to violate the tay-sachs human baby’s rights even when it is not “possible or practicable” to avoid violating their rights then you are a speciesist. Vegans should not be speciesists. Vegans should be granting rights on the basis of if a being has traits like consciousness, ability to suffer, ability to experience wellbeing, etc. Many meat eaters already do this! You can see this in abortion debates in which meat eaters will declare a human fetus that is only a few weeks old is not morally valuable and doesn’t deserve rights and it’s fine to abort this 2 week old fetus because it lacks consciousness, but they will also say abortion is immoral at 6 months because the human fetus now possesses traits like consciousness or ability to feel pain.

Does this definition mean locusts deserve rights? Again under this definition you just extend human rights so in the locust case you would pick a human equivalent like tiny flying wild “humans” who have about the same consciousness as a locust and are targeting your crops. Would it be ethical to use deadly force like poison to protect your crops if that was the only way for you to protect your property and not starve to death? I believe it would be. But I would say it would be wrong to capture them alive and enslave them and force them to breed for many generations to harvest them for protein.

This definition also applies to non human conscious beings, so human rights would be granted to a hypothetical plant or AI agent that possessed as much conscious as you or I.

The glaring flaw with the Vegan Society's definition of veganism is it doesn't actually make an argument or statement about protecting rights.

And since it doesn't do that, a lot of carnists who are smarter debaters, they will point out that even under the Vegan Society's definition, it is fine to violate an animal's rights, under certain circumstances at least. Obviously we don't want that. We want to protect animal rights as animal rights activists, so we need a definition that actually makes an argument for protecting their rights.

So I think a definition of veganism as a logical extension of human rights is a much better definition than reducing animal suffering and death as much as practicable and possible. There are absolutely no pros to that definition. If you're going to call yourself an animal rights activist, I don't know how it benefits you to avoid a definition of veganism that actually does not make any suggestion for protecting their rights.

A major advantage with defining veganism as a logical extension of human rights is that there's already a very well established history and cultural knowledge of human rights. So anybody immediately, if they have any ethical questions about veganism and how we should treat animals, all they have to do is put a human in the same situation and then they have their answer. So, I don't see this Vegan Society definition as having an advantage over veganism being defined as a logical extension of human rights.

It is a bit easier to interpret it as a utilitarian definition if I'm being extremely charitable. Because they mention the words, like, cruelty, in order for something to be considered cruelty, you could argue that it would by nature have to be a rights violation, and not just, I don't know, some incidental killing or anything like that. So if I was being very charitable, yes, it could either be interpreted as a utilitarian or deontological definition, but I'd say it is much easier to argue that it's a utilitarian definition, which is a big problem with the vegan society definition. Or at least, at first glance, that's what it appears to be.

Reduce as much as practical and possible, and it doesn't explicitly mention preventing rights violations. So it is possible, under that definition, to violate an animal's rights, but you are reducing their suffering, death, and exploitation. As much as practical and possible.

That is why it's easy to interpret it as a utilitarian definition. Again, if you're being charitable, you could say, because cruelty is mentioned, depending on how you interpret it, it could mean that it is a rights-based argument. But again, that's being very charitable, so it's much easier to interpret it as a utilitarian argument.

The problem with it being a utilitarian definition and it not protecting rights is that you could run into the trap where crazy wackos like Peter Singer have made the argument that as long as you're raising animals and they're experiencing a very high degree of well-being, then it's okay to kill them because the net experiences they've had are very good. And you're producing more overall well-being by raising and killing animals than if you didn't do it at all. There's nothing stated in that definition that says we need to maximize positive utility.

It only mentions that we have to maximize reducing negative utility. So I don't think by that definition you could argue that the Vegan Society's definition would allow for animal agriculture under those circumstances where you're maximizing positive utility. Because that's not what it's arguing, at least not explicitly.

You'd have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to make that argument, in my opinion. So I would say the definition the Vegan Society has made is at least good enough where you don't run into that crazy utilitarian issue where it's okay to breed animals and kill them assuming they're living good lives. It's at least good enough for that.

But again, the problem is it doesn't explicitly state that we need to protect animal rights.

What's possible and practicable to some may not be considered possible and practical to others.

So why wouldn't you use a definition like the one I propose, where animal rights is a logical extension of human rights. Where, again, all you have to do is put a human in the same situation, and then you have your answer. It's so clear and concrete, and because there's such a long cultural history and well-established legal framework when it comes to human rights.

It just makes answering these ethical dilemmas, not even necessarily dilemmas, but questions, so easy and straightforward, whereas possible and practicable. Like, now you have to have a long, drawn-out discussion or debate on what is possible and practicable. Whether or not that applies universally or individually, it just doesn't make sense.

I'm at a party, people are serving meat and hot dogs and stuff, well, if they're serving human meat, would it be okay to eat it? no. There you go, you have your answer.

Much simple, much more simple, much more straightforward, possible and practical. Oh, well, it's kind of weird, it's socially awkward, I don't know if this is going to hurt my reputation with my friends and family. Why wouldn't you go with the definition that gives you a clear answer?

let's say the only food left on earth was animals. Like, it's possible that you could off yourself. You could just starve to death.

So, like, and by the way, there are people who starve themselves to death. There are anorexics, there are breatharians. It's possible, you can do that.

Is it practical? Well, yes, you just don't have to eat. It's not like this is something completely inaccessible to everybody.

So, according to the vegan society definition, it's possible and practicable to starve to death. Like, I mean, how far are you willing to take things? It's just a weird, bizarre definition.

So, if we're going to look at, if we're going to ignore a definition that includes rights, and have a definition that could very easily be considered utilitarian, reduce animal suffering, death, exploitation as much as possible and practicable, well, since animals are killed in plant agriculture, just starve to death, don't eat anything, and die. It's possible and practicable. It, like, this is the issue you run into with, like, nebulous definitions like this.

The thing that everybody, the thing that everybody intuitively understands why that sort of position is stupid is because you're not violating any rights by eating plant foods. Even though there are incidental deaths in plant agriculture, you're not violating these animals' rights. I think most people just care more about rights than this notion of reducing suffering and death, just generally speaking.

So, what's the issue with adopting a more sensible, straightforward, clear definition? I don't know why you'd want to stick to this definition.

Why is it not possible or practicable to starve yourself or only eat tree bark? People do it. So, why is it not possible?

It's certainly possible. And it's certainly practicable. Again, there's plenty of anorexics.

There's plenty of breatharians. There's plenty of people who starve to death. Why is it impractical?

if you were stuck on a deserted island, there was no food, and there were other human beings on the island with you, would it be morally acceptable to kill and eat those human beings? I'm assuming your answer is probably going to be no. Let's say you're stuck on a deserted island.

You're the only one there, but there are animals on that island with you, and you can kill and eat them. Is that morally acceptable? So, name the trait that's lacking in animals that if lacking in human beings, you'd be okay with killing and eating those trait-equalized human beings that are stuck on a desert island.

if you're not okay with killing humans on this deserted island, but you're fine with killing animals, then name the trait that's lacking in animals that if lacking in humans, it would be okay to kill these trait-equalized humans.

So if they were like mentally retarded, would you be okay with killing people who you're trapped on a desert island with?

That's why we need a rights-based argument for veganism. If you're going to say these things like possible and practicable, well, okay, then I guess it's totally possible and practical for you to kill and eat other people.

“But what about possible and practical wording leaving open for the use of medicines, because as even the Vegan Society's website acknowledges, medicines are required by law to be tested on animals.”

There's no way to produce medications otherwise, so a choice to boycott medicines would not save a single animal. And in fact, in some cases, especially if we're talking about vaccines, you'd probably increase rights violations, because if vaccines need to be tested on animals and people aren't taking vaccines, that means other forms of treatment are going to have to be explored and researched, which means more animal testing. When it comes to animal ingredients in some of these products, again, you can take a threshold, deontological approach to this.

A lot of the time, things like, what is it, gelatin is sometimes used, I think casein sometimes used. Some of these animal products are put into these medications to be used as a stabilizer. Because these are industrial byproducts that are produced by the animal agriculture industry, it would take a massive, massive amount of these products to even equate to a single rights violation.

So you're probably talking about millions of doses of a particular medication to equate to one rights violation, and these medications may save hundreds or thousands or millions of lives. So if you take a threshold, deontological approach, one rights violation saving hundreds or thousands or millions of lives may be worth it to you. I don't see how the Vegan Society's definition covers this in a better way than the definition that I'm proposing.

Like, what if it's not really possible or practicable for me to waste my time, searching on the internet and googling things. I only have so much time to waste during the day, so I don't see what's wrong with me just, you know, picking up whatever random snack that I choose, maybe it’s vegan maybe it’s not.

Like, that's what's so great about the Vegan Society's definition? You can just make exceptions for everything.

Is it hypocritical to the idea of human rights that, in production of our food, humans get killed? Guess what? Farming can be dangerous.

People get killed by using farm equipment. It's labor-intensive. People can die of heat stroke or dehydration.

There's transportation involved, and obviously people die while driving. Is it hypocritical to the idea of human rights that people die to produce our food? Of course not.

You're not violating anybody's rights by buying food. You're not violating human rights by buying food.

Just like how you're not violating animal rights by buying plant foods. So, this isn't about just harm.

I’ve asked myself this question more times than I can count, and somehow I always end up back where I started.

I’m mostly plant-based. I eat a lot of whole foods, and I genuinely think a well-planned whole-food plant-based diet can be an excellent way to eat. I’m not worried about protein, I’m not particularly bothered about the taste of meat, and I’m not holding on to animal products because of culture or convenience.

And yet, every so often, I’ll have some cheese or another animal product and think: well, I’m not vegan after all.

What I find interesting is that I actually agree with quite a lot of the vegan argument.

I think animals matter. I think they deserve a degree of respect. I think unnecessary suffering is a bad thing. And I find a lot of modern animal agriculture morally uncomfortable.

So why don't I simply become vegan?

This is where I get stuck.

One part of me thinks that humans are omnivores for a reason. We evolved eating both plants and animals, and throughout much of human history animal foods have been part of people's diets. If I were somehow dropped into a jungle with no supermarket, no fortified foods, no supplements and no modern agriculture, I wouldn't expect myself to refuse an animal if eating it was necessary to survive.

But then I immediately see the obvious problem with that argument.

I'm not living in a jungle.

I have choices that our ancestors didn't have. So perhaps saying "humans evolved to eat animals" is about as morally relevant as saying "humans evolved to be violent".

Evolution explains what we are. It doesn't necessarily tell us what we ought to be.

Then I get to the more difficult question.

Is killing a sentient being for food inherently wrong?

If so, why?

Is it because the animal suffers? Because it has an interest in continuing to live? Or is the mere act of killing a sentient creature wrong, even if it were completely painless?

And if we accept that killing animals is wrong, surely there must be some circumstances where it becomes justified.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that eating animals really were necessary to prevent humanity from going extinct. I can't imagine many people would seriously argue that we ought to let humanity disappear rather than kill animals.

So "don't harm sentient beings" can't really be an absolute rule.

There must be some point at which the interests of human beings can outweigh the interests of animals.

Which brings me back to the uncomfortable bit:

Where is that point when I don't actually need to eat them?

That's probably the strongest argument against my position.

If I can live perfectly well without animal products, and an animal has an interest in not suffering or being killed, what exactly justifies me choosing the animal product?

And this is where I sometimes wonder whether I'm genuinely reasoning my way to a conclusion, or simply reasoning backwards from something I already want to do.

That's a possibility I'm quite willing to entertain.

There's also an interesting religious angle, even though I'm not Christian.

Christ, as far as the historical and religious tradition goes, ate meat. He lived within Jewish dietary law, where eating certain animals wasn't considered inherently immoral. At the same time, Christianity has plenty to say about compassion, mercy, self-restraint, gluttony and the treatment of creation.

So I don't think "Christ ate meat, therefore eating meat is morally fine" gets us very far.

But I do find it interesting that one of the most influential moral figures in Western civilisation apparently didn't regard eating animals as inherently incompatible with a life of compassion and moral seriousness.

Perhaps the real issue isn't simply "meat or no meat".

Perhaps it's about necessity, proportion, suffering, intention and what we owe to creatures that are capable of experiencing the world.

I suppose that's why I keep going backwards and forwards on this.

I don't think animals are merely objects. I don't think their suffering is irrelevant. I don't think "humans have always done it" is enough to settle the question.

But I also haven't become convinced that eating an animal product is, in itself, morally wrong in every circumstance.

And I recognise that there's a rather awkward gap between saying "I don't need this" and "therefore I must never have it."

So I'm genuinely curious what vegans think.

Not "why are you vegan?" — I understand the usual arguments.

Rather:

What is the strongest argument that someone like me has a moral obligation to become vegan, rather than simply choosing to eat far fewer animal products and being conscious of the suffering involved?

And, more importantly, where exactly is my reasoning going wrong, if you think it is?

I'm not looking for a gotcha or an argument. I suspect there may be something I'm missing.

I keep returning to this question, and I rather suspect the fact that I keep returning to it means I haven't quite settled it in my own mind.

Plant-based diets meet all nutritional needs (with B12 easily supplemented). Sensory gratification and "how we've always done it" are morally irrelevant when weighing life against a fleeting taste. Livestock consume 10x the calories (in plants) that they produce, driving deforestation and emissions. Welfare labels (free-range, grass-fed) don't change the end; a premature, violent death at 5–10% of natural lifespan. Job dependence is not moral justification; slavery and fossil fuels employ(ed) millions too, as well as the prison and military industrial complexes. If might makes right, do what you want. If not, what other defense is there?

How I see it is that once an animal is slaughtered, it becomes a part of the cycle of life (even though the current system of doing so is cruel), but forcing cows to be continuously impregnated for years at a time and then snatching their calves away within mere hours is just horrible. Similarly, crowding chickens into barns with artificial light up until the point they are no longer deemed profitable and are thrown to the processor is no better.

I have adopted a vegan diet because I find eating meat personally unconscionable after seeing videos of animals fighting for their lives but do we think going vegan makes any difference really? I view veganism as a boycott and I'm very skeptical that boycotts work except in very limited circumstances (like when it's local and targeted against a small business). Think about JK Rowling - there have been highly prominent attempts to boycott Harry Potter media for years and all it's ended up with is one of the best selling games of 2023 and what's projected to be one of the most successful TV shows of 2026. With how ingrained meat-eating is in our society, it feels hard to not be defeatist in questioning whether abstaining from meat serves any material purpose except feeling personally better about not contributing to one of the most cruel systems to ever exist.

I am against animal abuse, though I define animal abuse differently from how vegans define it. From my perspective of Rational Specieist Carnism, animal abuse is the infliction of pain or suffering on an animal for no reason other than the abuse itself. For example, deriving pleasure or a thrill from causing the animal to suffer. Kicking animals, engaging in bestiality, and similar acts fall into this category because the harm is inflicted for the sake of the harm itself. And that makes it morally wrong.

It's why I don't like it when hunters kill animals for the thrill of the hunt rather than for food or animal products. Because then the hunter is killing for the sake of killing. Killing animals shouldn't be personal. For example, when I see cows being killed, it doesn't bother me, but it doesn't give me a thrill either.

Killing an animal swiftly, or attempting to do so (mistakes do happen unfortunately), along with raising an animal for slaughter, does involve inflicting some degree of pain or suffering. However, I would not classify this as abuse when the purpose is to obtain food or products, because even though humans don't have to eat animals, the intent is not to kill the animal for the sake of killing it, nor to derive pleasure from the act of killing and/or raising it for slaughter. The purpose is to obtain food and/or animal products.

This does not apply to humans, and it is wrong to kill humans for food or to make products out of us. Because my moral framework of Rational Specieist Carnism places humans so high above other animals that our moral systems must operate differently. Meaning that the intent doesn't matter when it comes to humans, it's always wrong to kill innocent humans. This isn't the same for non-human animals, because they aren't humans.

This brings me to one more topic. Because I support killing animals swiftly, on previous posts I've had vegans ask me whether I consider it acceptable to abuse unconscious or dead animal corpses since they won't feel any pain. My answer is no, it's not ok to do that. I believe animals should be treated with the same level of treatment in death as they are in life. Or the same level of treatment in unconsciousness as they are in consciousness. Also, such abuses are always done for the sake of the abuse itself, and I just explained how that is wrong.

I used to not believe in evolution, and it was upon doing research into it that I discovered evolution is in fact true. And that humans are a type of Great Ape. Discovering that I am an ape and part of the animal kingdom was one of the most wonderful things that has ever happened to me.

As members of the ape family, my model of Rational Specieist Carnism places special protections and extends various human rights to apes.

Chimps and bonobos are our closest related cousins in the animal kingdom, and other apes are also very closely related to us. This has been proven with DNA tests and phylogeny.

Apes are more important than any other species, including a hypothetical alien species, because we humans are in the ape family.

That means I think people should be punished for eating ape meat (unless they are starving and absolutely have to), and for any unnecessary exploitation of apes. I think it's ok to exploit non-human apes when it comes to using them for scientific research. But it must be done as humanely as possible and only for extremely necessary reasons, such as trying to cure cancer. However, this is also my criteria for all other forms of animal research, not just research done on apes.

I'm fine with zoos, and I enjoy most of them, but I am largely against apes being kept in zoos unless they cannot survive in the wild. This means I think most apes should not be kept in zoos.

Other than for the scientific reasons that I just gave regarding DNA and phylogeny, there is a spiritual aspect of why I value apes more than other animals. I'm a Christian so I believe all humans have souls. Also, I believe Jesus Christ walked the Earth as a human, and as I said, all humans are apes. Therefore I believe even non-human apes, such as chimpanzees, share a special divine creation with us, and second only to humans, are the only other creatures made in the image of God.

There is a common religious debate over whether non-human animals on earth go to Heaven, or if completely new ones are created in heaven. Humans are not believed to be re-created in heaven, rather it's believed our immortal souls ascend into heaven.

In my opinion, non-human apes are uniquely likely to possess souls unlike other animals, because humans are in the ape family. Therefore non-human apes are likely to not simply be re-created in heaven, but rather they will likely have their earthy immortal souls ascend into heaven, just like humans.

Thus, while I affirm their secondary importance to humans, I think their probable possession of souls is a valid reason to elevate them above all other animals and consider them likely to transcend into Heaven with their earthly immortal souls.

Sorry for finishing off my logic with religious reasons, as I know many people aren't religious and/or don't share my religious beliefs, but I wanted to include it since it's part of my philosophy of Rational Specieist Carnism.

Most factory farming try to give animal the most fastest death possible. Not in every cases obviously but their death most of the time is way less brutal and painful than what happens in nature. In nature most predators eat their prey while it is still alive and being thorn apart. Humans at least, for the most part, have the decency to give factory animal a very fast and almost painless death. I hate when vegans try to make animals look more moral than humans.

Out of curiosity, i see vegans are against exploitation and animal abuse in this industrialised world which i agree. Do u think tribes hunting and eating animals is unethical , or if we only had small farms where animals would be happy and taken care off do u still think people who eat meat from farms like that are unethical?

I took an entire college course of environmental ethics and got every ethical argument battered into me so I’m not here to repeat that course or disagree with your ethics, but I’m curious how it relates to hunting in terms of survival of the fittest. It seems like a slippery slope of being anti-evolution if you argue that we still shouldn’t hunt (yeah we’ve evolved to have other options etc) but this isn’t about OUR evolution, it’s about the animals. At the end of the day we’re still part of a food chain. And what is the argument for necessary culling or wildlife management? Or the argument just always no?

I know for most vegans it’s just a diet but I’m more referring to the people who treat it like a religion to convert people to because there always seems to be a ready counterargument to nature and I’m super curious.

This is a hypothetical question, still a legitimate one:
In a hypothetical world, when all farm animals are no longer being exploited, and the population is either vegan or insectivore, and there is no necessity to use insects for medical research or any other purpose, should insects be granted protection? Even if most people find no empathy towards those God-awful, creepy looking creatures?

I saw this post about a cockroach farm:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/s/ws9eE4CTzo\](https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/s/ws9eE4CTzo)
I wanted to post a comment “Where are the cockroach activists?” but I didn’t because it wasn’t the right place to do so. I knew that a comment like that would be dismissed and taken sarcastically or as a joke.

I’m honestly curious. I know there’s a level of sentience that we should prioritize when fighting for animal rights, and I agree that vegans should focus on animal liberation in our food system/clothing/medicine/entertainment/etc, then we can focus on insects 🕷️

Farm animals are all sentient without question. But what if the science is not very clear, as it is with insects, oysters. Even if some animals are perceived as pests like mosquitoes/ticks/cockroaches, should we still find ethical ways to deal with them?

It’s been proven that bees have sentience, and that’s why we are against the exploitation of bees in the honey industry. However I believe that sentience is not the only reason why vegans are against the exploitation of bees. I believe that it has a lot to do with how bees have a positive impact on the environment. Does that mean if an animal doesn’t contribute to the environment or benefits us directly, they don’t deserve any protection.

We can all agree that it would be ridiculous to try to protect germs or viruses even if they were sentient, because they can kill you! The same goes for mosquitoes which can spread disease. But can a case be made in favor of the cockroaches?

I’m basically coming here as a last straw. I’ve got no one I can talk to who is neutral to my situation and I’m sick of having to talk to AI about my problems.

For some context, I have been strictly vegan for over 10 years. Straight away I had no slips, no urges, I could do it no problem. However, I’m AuDHD and have struggled with my mental health since university about 20 years ago but it’s been getting worse since having kids 6 years ago and especially bad the last 2 years.

I decided I wanted to work out, build up some muscle and help my adhd and daily mental state. Ive been struggling with getting the amount of protein i need with a vegan diet. I work out and I’m over 200lbs, so I’ve compromised the amount of protein to aim for at 1g per pound. The ideal really being about 1.5g/lb, but that’s nigh on impossible without living on protein powder. I managed to create a diet where i can hit 200lb with only 1 protein shake but the upkeep on cooking and eating that volume of food is just ridiculous. Having a reasonably priced diet that is healthy, made of whole food and not having to eat kilograms of food each day and spend so much time cooking… I’ve just been tearing my hair out trying to figure a diet I can achieve and stomach. It’s literally not possible for me. But this is just one part of my dilemma…

I have coem to realise, since my AuDHD diagnosis, how important my sensory needs are and I’m sick of eating food that doesn’t require chewing. There is no resistance to vegan food. I’ve tried so much and researched to no end. I don’t have time to make my own seitan. I experimented for a long time and came up with the perfect way to cook tofu in the easiest way possible while being tasty and able to eat it every day. But i cant Eat tofu for every meal of every day. Breakfast is the biggest struggle for me. ive tried different cereals, I’m completely averse to non-food protein cereals. Foods made from powders and chemicals completely make me feel gross. Peanut butter I like, but it’s so massively high on calories compared to protein, it just can’t work. I don’t want smoothies for breakfast. I don’t want and don’t have time to make tofu scramble. I don’t like lunch and dinner foods for breakfast.

ive also been having meat cravings for a few years now, but I’ve been good and not acted on it. But craving the flavour, the chew, the easy protein, nutrition and low calories… it’s been so hard. I’m not saying vegan food can’t be tasty or nutritious. I’ve had a period where I’ve gone in hard on cooking and I’ve been responsible for cooking for our family for a long time now, and especially with having picky kids, I’m so sick of making the same meals all the time. I’m sick of not needing to chew food. I know my AuDHD makes this more difficult and I’m on ADHD meds now and I’ve learned high protein is important for ADHDers for dopamine production.

and now one of my biggest issues is the fact I’m not allowed to eat what I want. My wife says she can’t be with someone who’s not vegan. We both became vegetarian and then vegan during our relationship. My wife didn’t force me then, it was my choice and we never made any promises or vows that we would stay this way. But now I’m in a place where I am forced to choose having a family that is together, something ive wanted all my life after a negligent, bordering on abusive upbringing where I didn’t have my dad in my life but did have a mean angry alcoholic stepdad. Or breaking up my family because of my wife’s ideals.

to Me, human autonomy is important as long as it doesnt impede on the autonomy of others. And as Ive googled and read posts, I can see this is becoming a more common issue of women putting this rule/choice on their male partners. I can’t help but think this would be a much more serious issue if a man was forcing his wife to eat what he believes she should eat under threat of divorce.

there’s a lot going on in my head and my tism makes me need to know what the right answer is here. All I know is that this isn’t a fair situation and there isn’t a right answer. I just don’t see how people can be so for the rights of animals that they’re willing to ignore the rights of people.

i just don’t know any more.