The first argument is some herbivores eats meals rarely.

I think that doesn't make sense because vegans are not vegan due to, they think we are herbivores. That's his choice and they are empathetic people. Of course, there some non-experienced vegans. But that's still doesn't make sense.

Second argument is cooked meat improved our brain does not starch. Okay that's true but that's still doesn't make sense. Because vegans are not thinking like that. They are vegan because they believe it's not ethical. Also be careful about this, some studies say vegans are smarter than normal people. That's true because they have good empathy, but they are meaning IQ. That's still true because they are more careful what they are eating. So that doesn't mean cooked meat is not make you smart because vegans are not eating meat, so meat is not important. In modern society we don't need cooked meats because we have technology.

Third argument is veganism is disadvantage and restrictive of human evolution so don't be vegan. That's completely not true. They are more careful at what they are eating.

My debate is about vegan anarcho primitivism. Okay that's pretty need deep understanding because we know under anarcho primitivism you can still eat agriculture things without harvesting stage. So, you can directly eat them. But it that's enough? I don't think so. Hunter gathers lose because agriculture have more people. Imagine you are not hunter, and you need to fight against agriculture, and you are vegan. Vegans and herbivores are different things of course but they have common things like they are not hunters etc. That's pretty impossible to fight against agriculture when you are vegan anprim. You need to be hunter to fight against agriculture. But agriculture is not first enemy of hunters gathers also there some people think before hunter gathers exists. We are not full-time hunters, and we can still have lived like herbivores like in past. But there is a problem we must need to be hunter to fight against them Okay what is the first enemy? Nomadism is the first enemy of hunter gather people. But it's not clear is human can pass nomadism stage and can directly enter agriculture, for an example from some places like American hunter gather people at BC.

Let's imagine that we are able to minimise to the maximum extent the harm we do to non-human animals. What do you think should be done next?

From my view (not completely sure that's why I want to hear your opinions) the next step would be reducing the suffering that wild animals experience. Nature isn't this holy thing and wild animals can suffer greatly from untreated infections, disease, weather or even from predators killing them.

I would suggest that the right thing would be to set up and monitor ecosystems where predation is removed, in a sanctuary like fashion or by monitoring large expanses of area. Where the animals could live freely but also receive health care. Predators would probably have to live with their own kind and be fed either lab grown meat or a viable food source.

Please tell me what you think, in the next part I'm just gonna give some of the reasoning relevant for my take.

If we are against a sentient creature harming another sentient creature unnecessarily, and we can remove the necessity for predators to harm, then we should be against them harming other sentient beings. If we think that someone suffering against their will is something bad, than we should think that preventing that suffering is good.

An action receives moral consideration based on how it affects other beings, so I don't think someone is morally obligated to do a good action, only that we are morally obligated to not do a bad action.

I've been vegan for over 10 years now, and I don't eat bivalves (though I find no moral tragedy with whoever eats them).

Once we examine the definition provided by the Vegan Society, we may be able to encounter some problems: "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."

This definition of veganism focuses solely on the entity "animal" when referring to who we should morally protect, rather than sentient and/or conscious beings. I find this problematic because, technically, according to the definition, it would be considered vegan to torture a hypothetical sentient and conscious plant species.

Imagine a species like Groot from Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy.

According to the stated definition, it would be deemed more ethical—and consequently vegan—to torture and kill this hypothetical sentient and conscious plant than to torture and kill a non-sentient and non-conscious animal. The fact that (so far) only animals have the capacity to be sentient and conscious does not mean that all animals are sentient and conscious. For physical experiences to occur, a centralized nervous system, including a brain, is required to allow for subjective experiences. Some animals lack these systems. This implies that some animals cannot be sentient or conscious. For instance, this includes beings without nervous systems, such as Porifera (the phylum that includes sponges), and those with decentralized nervous systems, such as echinoderms and cnidarians. Thus, non-sentient animals include sponges, corals, anemones, and hydras.

This, naturally, is a hypothetical scenario, but it effectively illustrates one of the issues with the Vegan Society's proposed definition.

Another issue is the use of the phrase "as far as is possible and practicable," which, given its ambiguous language, implies that we are all vegans as long as we try to minimize animal suffering "as far as possible and practicable." For instance, if someone decides that eating meat but not wearing animal fur is their interpretation of "possible and practicable," according to the Vegan Society's definition, they would be considered vegan.

I will now try and propose a definition of veganism that better aligns with what animal rights activists advocate when identifying as vegans:

"Veganism is a moral philosophy that advocates for the extension of basic negative rights to sentient and/or conscious beings. In other words, it aims to align the granting of moral rights with the assignment of fundamental legal rights. It is an applied ethical stance that defends the trait-adjusted application of the most basic human negative rights (the right to life, freedom from exploitation, torture, and slavery, as well as the right to autonomy and bodily integrity) to all sentient and/or conscious beings.

The social and/or political implications of veganism include, but are not limited to, abstaining from creating, purchasing, consuming, or supporting products made using methods that violate the negative rights of sentient and/or conscious beings, provided there are no competing considerations of negative rights.

Simplistic Definition: "Veganism is an applied ethical stance that advocates for the trait-adjusted application of human rights (such as those stated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights) to non-human sentient beings."

Clarification of Terms:

Sentient Beings: Any entity for which the capacity to subjectively experience its life can be solidly argued (as is verifiable in the case of (virtually) all vertebrates).

Rights: An action that, if not performed, or an inaction that, if performed, would be considered morally reprehensible in principle (i.e., independent of utility concerns). For example, if others perform an action that deprives me of "x" or fail to perform an action necessary for me to have "x," it would be deemed morally reprehensible in principle, regardless of the consequences or utility of such actions or inactions.

Moral Rights: Strong moral considerations that are ethically condemnable if denied.

Legal Rights: Strong legislative considerations that are legally condemnable if denied.

Negative Rights: Rights that obligate inaction, such as the right not to be killed, tortured, or unjustifiably hindered.

Competing Rights: Moral or legislative considerations with the potential to prevail after rational deliberation, such as the right to self-defense.

Trait-Adjusted Rights: Moral and legislative considerations granted to sentient and/or conscious beings based on their individual characteristics and basic specific needs.

Do you find that this definition better tracks your vegan values or do you think that torturing Groot is permissible in lieu of the definition of veganism by the Vegan Society?

Where does our right to use the Earth’s resources, plants, and animals originate from, and how is that philosophically justify such a claim?

First, if you think why do we need to justify that—if we dont justify that, simply we should cease to exist because we cannot live without earth's resources, plants and animals.

Aristotle provides one potential answer through his teleological framework. He argues that nature operates in a hierarchical order, where plants exist for animals, and animals exist for humans. Humans, possessing reason and will, stand at the top of this natural hierarchy. This superiority, rooted in the capacity to deliberate and create purposes, provides a justification for using other entities as tools or resources. From this perspective, humans have the natural right to dominate and use animals and plants as they lack independent will or purpose.

I have extended this idea with my own idea: entities without will or the capacity to create their own purposes are, by their nature, tools. Plants, animals, and other natural resources are non-volitional entities, whereas humans, through their ability to create and pursue self-determined purposes, are not tools but autonomous agents. However, I am grappling with a key challenge: what does the existence of will actually change?

For me, there is no essential ethical distinction between plants, animals, and natural resources—they are all non-volitional and thus fall into the same moral category. Yet, animals’ capacity to suffer introduces a significant moral consideration absent in plants or inanimate resources. This raises further questions: if suffering is the central concern, does the removal of suffering (e.g., through numbing pain) morally justify their use? Such a conclusion feels inadequate and overly reductive, as it fails to account for deeper ethical concerns beyond suffering alone. Suffering should not be taken as the main reason here.

Therefore for the Earth's resources, there is still the same issue, why do we have the right to use them and what is the difference between plants and Earth's resources and animals.

This post is addressed to carnists, not vegans.

The promised "one sentence": Oysters and mussels are, from a nutritional perspective, just like meat, yet they have no central nervous system (unlike crabs) and farming them is sustainable.

You cannot justify the mass suffering in factory farms, even if you are "just buying eggs and dairy", when non sentient and nutritious food exists that solves this precise problem. If you are still exploiting animals, it is out of convenience, not necessity. You value your taste buds, even if it means torturing animals to death. Even if oysters and mussels were conscious, they would certainly not suffer nearly as much as pigs, cows or chickens (due to the simplicity of their nervous system).

Sustainable: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/recommendation/mussels/mussels-29904

Health (example of B12): https://www.medicinenet.com/are_oysters_and_mussels_vegan/article.htm

I've been vegan for about 4 years, vegetarian for 10 years. I have osteoporosis and am only 23. I have a range of digestive issues and nausea, some of which I had my whole life even when I used to eat chicken, eggs and dairy.

For collagen, I have been reading up about it and using scholarGPT through premium chatGPT to learn more about it. Collagen is about 35% of the bone. Oh, and I also have joint hypermobility, and almost all of the ehlers-danlos syndromes except stretchy skin.

From what I understand, there are no plant based sources of collagen, just ingredients or components that can be used to stimulate the body to produce collagen, but I am not sure about how effective this is for the majority of the population.

I understand veganism is about being as free from animal products as practical and feasible as you can go, so I am no longer too morally conflicted about the use of animal based collagen in this period of trying to improve my bone health in conjunction with intense strength/weight bearing exercise to stimulate the bones, however, for the majority of the population, I wonder how this works and would like to be more informed about it.

The thing with bone health is I never noticed any fractures or anything my whole life, touch wood, no issues directly to do with bones; I just have always been chronically underweight, and it seems that for many people, they have no idea they have osteopenia or have osteoporosis (obviously still a small portion of the population I would imagine), so I am not sure about how anecdotal experience could hold up other than if someone were to report their bone density results from scans.

Of course I am doing my diligence with Vitamin D supplementation and getting a wide variety of info from various doctors and specialists and a naturopath.

Sorry for the ramble. Here's a TLDR summary of my main questions:

1. What is the data/research to show that collagen synthesis from plant based collagen sources (supplementation or diet) is adequate for the majority of people?

2. What are people's personal bone density results after being vegan/vegetarian for many years?

3. Any tips for me if possible to feasibly avoid animal based collagen supplements, or do you recommend animal based unfortunately? Any additional tips?

I've noticed cruelty free products come up from time to time here as well. In some debates some commenters said that it's simply easy to look at labels on toiletries and decide if it's vegan or not. Now I'm not all that well-versed when it comes to this, but I know there are apps that also I've used to check for some things related to these products - usually it's environmental stuff.

I do wonder how much trust people in general put in vegan labels on products outside of food, and how well you think it describes the level of cruelty that went into producing that product. I was trying to chase down some ingredient related to toothpaste, which I was recently googling and it got me thinking that not including that vegan label might also simply mean that they can't guarantee that no animal products went into the product - but that it's most likely largely animal-free. Or they simply don't want to invest time/money into vegan labeling.

I'm rather skeptical of this "cruelty free" label due to e.g environmental concerns related to various products and how well these things are actually accounted for. I realize environmental concerns aren't exactly vegan concerns - but then people should be careful about using expressions like "cruelty free", because those are words vegans don't own and environmentally poor products can be "cruel" to the living world. Also, when it comes to anything medical / chemical - I think pretty much everything needs to be animal-tested at some point and fruit flies are very generally used in lab work and research and testing.

But if there are experts on the topic - how do you go about this and what's your reasoning? Or do you simply look for the vegan label, and that's it?

NOTE: This is not pro-eating bone char filtered sugar. I wanted to explore potential biases in community.

Recently I have been researching how many various "staple" goods are produced on a commercial (and sometimes local) scale and I've discovered a few interesting things. There are a few products that are often talked about for their use of animal parts during production. Sugar, of course comes to mind, along with gelatin or isinglass being used for filtration of certain liquids.

There appear to be a large number of products, however that rarely receive attention for their production processes. Some examples below:

(keep in mind some of these processes are not industry standard and are likely more experimental and uncommon)

- Dried fruit may use non vegan oils in the drying process. source: https://iadns.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fft2.64 (Ethyl oleate may either be animal or plant-derived).

- Freeze dried fruit may use sugar as part of the pretreatment process. source: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/8/12/1661 keyword: 'osmotic agents'

- Nori (and possibly other types of algae) are often started on oyster shells as part of the growing process. source: https://yamamotoyama.com/pages/how-nori-seaweed-is-made This one appears to be more common. Edit: I wanted to add that the algae that agar is produced from appear so be grown in a similar fashion. This could have huge implications, as many things, from mushroom farms to nutritional yeast are likely started on agar

- Maple syrup: this one seems to be well-known, but not often talked about. Traditionally animal fat was used as a defoaming agent in larger setups. It may still be used today, however the most common defoamer is now something called 'ATMOS 300K.' It's a proprietary mix and it appears that it likely isn't vegan either.

- Other pretreatment processes, and animal testing: this is more of a broad statement about minimally processed foods, mainly canned/frozen foods. Ingredients such as lye are often used to produce fruits and vegetables that are peeled in some form (e.g. canned tomatoes, frozen peaches, etc.) and also things like nixtamalized corn. source: https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/application-note-lye-peeling-of-fruits-vegetables-rosemount-en-68348.pdf I bring this up because it is often safe to assume that "raw materials" are going to be animal tested - just look up 'xyz MSDS sheet' and you can often find safety data and subsequent animal testing done by a company. I believe Arm & Hammer would be a good example of this, for the baking soda. There may be a similar case with this regarding products such as white rice using various abrasive powders to remove the bran (I've also heard of white rice and split lentils/ other polished legumes using leather as an abrasive material, but I've struggled to find good information on this).

There should be more sources for all of these, this is just what I found rather quickly.

I guess my question is: why? There are a lot of animal parts being used for processing, yet only a select few are ever focused on. To be fair, many of these appear to be much less common than bone char or isinglass filtration. However some, like the maple syrup and nori, are pretty much industry standard. i guess I am wondering if our focus is sometimes lost when making consumer choices.

So, if I understand well, veganism is not only about not killing animals, but's also about not exploiting the animals. So things such as sheep's wool, cow's milk, chicken's eggs, and even bee's honey is excluded from the everyday vegan's consumption (both died and other uses).

I was wondering if vegans were also aware of the fact that their consumption could exploit also humans, and I was wondering if they were avoiding it. From my experience, it seems that human exploitation is rarely (never ?) included into the veganism principles.

For example, most electronics contains Coltan mineral https://issafrica.org/iss-today/child-miners-the-dark-side-of-the-drcs-coltan-wealth which is infamously mined by children.

Here's a list of forced labor, or child labor: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ilab/child_labor_reports/tda2023/2024-tvpra-list-of-goods.pdf

Note that these goods may or may not be exported to your country (though in the case of Coltan it most likely is).

If you are aware that your consumption is causing human exploitation, but don't make efforts to limit it, what makes you take a preference in limiting animal exploitation but not human exploitation ?

This is just a small point that's been on my mind a few times after it came up in a discussion from a month or two ago.

There is no question that insects like mosquitos are sentient. Now, I understand it's fine to kill these pests if they are attacking for many reasons, chief among them being self-defense, so that isn't the question here.

The question is after a mosquito has been swatted, why don't vegans make sure that the mosquito is actually dead, and not still twitching and potentially suffering?

Some might claim some vegans do do that, OK, sure, maybe. But in my experience most do not, most act the same way as meat eaters in this regard, swat about it and forget about it. Often when I swat a mosquito, I can still see it twitching. Who knows what damage the swat did, it may have just crippled the wings, the animals brain might be mostly fine and it could be suffering for quite some time.

So, why is this kind of suffering overlooked? It's not much more effort to stamp the mosquito and make sure it's actually dead, but the concern just doesn't seem to be there. Why not?

So in post-aoxiety world where there are no more factories making processed food, no more farms to grow crops, no more fertiliser or pesticide, would you eat a dog to save your children's lives? Walk around the countryside and see how easy it is to find plant food, you wouldn't survive from scavenging.

"While several studies have shown that a vegan diet (VD) decreases the risk of cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, veganism has been associated with adverse health outcomes, namely, nervous, skeletal, and immune system impairments, hematological disorders, as well as mental health problems due to the potential for micro and macronutrient deficits.**"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10027313/

Hello,

I'm interested in the philosophy of being a vegan, and I've been thinking about a few ideas that I think most vegans will share, and what I think are the realistic options we, as a species, to ensure that animal suffering comes to an end.

First, let's establish the parameters:

1. Factory animals suffer for their existence.
2. Wild animals suffer for their existence. Most wild animals die in horrific ways after being predated on, dying in a fight, or to various sicknesses and parasites etc.
3. This suffering would not have come to pass if the animals had not been born. I believe most vegans would agree that the animal not being born would be better than ending up as a factory farmed animal, I believe the same for wild animals.
4. Humans have a moral obligation to minimize or end animal suffering.

So, how do we solve animal suffering? I believe the most ethical option is to kill all animals to prevent new animals from suffering. Yes, they'll have to suffer temporarily as they die (which should be done as humanely as possible), but the future generations of those animals will not suffer, which massively outweighs the suffering as every animal is killed. As animal existence in most states is suffering, it is better to prevent that suffering in the first place.

While I realize this might sound a bit extreme, I don't see a reason for why this is not logically sound. Preventing new animals from being born is the most ethical choice. Now, we are also eliminating all possible joy from the theoretical animals' lives, of course, but eliminating suffering and creating joy are two different things.

If we instead thought that humans have a moral obligation to ensure animal-well being, then I propose that animals are selectively bred to ensure we have the space and resources to ensure fulfilling lives for all animals that are born. They are placed within an environment where their suffering is minimized and their well-being maximized: animals will not have to worry about predation, sickness, or lack of food. While this might eerily sound like a zoo, in reality it would be the animals natural living habitat, of course monitored and administered by humans, while preventing unnecessary human contact. Human intervention is necessary, as wild animals cannot otherwise avoid great suffering.

Some final notes. If you're opposed to both options, I would like to hear your alternative, if you agreed with the parameters I set up. If you think that we should just aim for generally more animal well-being than suffering, rather than eliminating all suffering, then it would still require some actions from the second plan, as animals in the wild suffer without human intervention. I'd also be ready to hear what is an acceptable amount of intervention in that case, but to my mind, it would have to be a lot to balance the scale out. But, please let me know what you think.

Some drugs can be legal over others, some people can be imprisoned over others, etc. You can imprison someone for 5 years or you can imprison them for life. These are not seen as all-or-nothing situations. The difference in legalization and imprisonment comes from the significance the consequences of drugs and actions have to people.

Same thing for killing pigs but not dogs. Whenever I hear this, I think of the line "If alcohol and tobacco are legal, then why not fentanyl and heroin?"

You can respect the right of people to get intoxicated while simultaneously protecting society by allowing some drugs and not others. Similarly, you can respect the right of people to eat meat by allowing some harm but simultaneously disallow unrestricted harm, and by allowing harm to some animals but not to all animals. This is not an all-or-nothing situation.

Animals cannot form opinions. Because I see that as a condition for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don't grant animals these rights. Because some of them can feel pain (however that is experienced), I grant them the right to have their pain minimized. So, if you can kill a pig (that isn't the property of another) without it feeling anything, go for it.

Also, I give priority over other animals to those humans who have never been able to form opinions, are not able to form opinions right now, and will never be able to form opinions, because they belong to a species that has members with the ability to form opinions. So no killing mentally handicapped people. By the way, if there was one single alien out of a population of 1 million aliens of the same species, the wishes of the alien to not have its own "kin" killed would be respected depending on the circumstances. If the situation was a dire one, where we either have to choose between extinction or eating half the alien population, the latter would be chosen.

The purpose of that last paragraph is to keep the focus on the paragraphs above it, as that was the point of this post.

I’m on the carnivore diet / animal based diet.

This question is for the vegans! What about the carnivore diet or meat is bad?

I want you to give me as many concerns as you could think of,

examples: “meat is bad for the environment.” “Chicken is loaded with hormones” “Meat raises heart disease.” “Eating animals are morally wrong” “Eggs raise your cholesterol”

Feel free to add onto any of these examples OR add your own concerns. This is for genuine curiosity of mine.

An alien from a vegan world comes to visit our planet and asks the population to give their best arguments about why people on Earth feel morally justified using and consuming animals when they don’t need to. What are your best arguments for this being?

If humans eating meat is unjustified because there's an element of nonconsensuality from the animal, then wouldn't that mean non-human animals eating meat is unjustified because there's an element of nonconsensuality when they catch their prey? Is it unjustified for other animals to eat meat?

Posters here are expected to account for every potential hypothetical their argument could be extrapolated to. It not only has to be logical in those scenarios it also has to feel good/be intuitive.

Rule-based veganism can also feel morally unintuitive in certain hypothetical scenarios. If someone threatens to kill people unless you trivially exploit a worm, it would be unintuitive to let everyone die.

There should be a less strict test for whether an argument is reasonable than 'does it feel intuitive in every scenario I can imagine'.

Humans are the only Animals capable of comprehending ethics so why include other animals? The point of ethics, of morality, is to facilitate social cohesion, animals can't understand things like the social contract so why should they enjoy the benefits?

It follows Animals have the capacity to suffer and so causing unnecessary suffering is bad. I fully agree with that.

Animals are capable of dying, so unnecessarily killing them is bad, but the same can be same for plants. Plants can't suffer but they can be killed. I'm sure if a plant could talk it wouldn't want to be killed. For this reason jainists avoid killing plants and even bacteria as much as possible. I'm not sure how you can justify killing plants not animals, If you want to say killing is wrong because it causes suffering, I would agree, but insofar as it causes suffering where (most) vegans seem to think its intrinsic, or at least included for animals but not for plants, but why is what I'm asking.

Additionally Animals can be exploited, but so can everything, not just all life forms but inanimate things as well. If exploitation is intrinsically wrong, then even exploiting sand to make glass is morally wrong. If you want to say exploitation is wrong because it causes suffering, I would agree, but insofar as it causes suffering where (most) vegans seem to think its intrinsic, or at leased included for animals but not rocks or plants, but why is what I'm asking.

And for humans? Without leaning on religion, I can't say its objectively wrong for humans to be killed or exploited (or even harmed objectively, but I don't want to derail this debate on meta-ethics lets assume we ought to prevent suffering as we have). But killing and exploitation causes suffering in humans in a way that can't be seen in rocks, or plants or animals. Also as a human, for pragmatic rather then moral reasons, I'd like for both to be illegal for means of self interest and the overwhelming amount of humans agree hence why we made our Human Rights, and I would also feel comforted if people emotionally belied both to be reprehensible as it makes the possibility of me and everyone I care about (which is most humans) being killed and exploited that much lower.

What about situation X where you kill someone no one knows about without inflicting suffering on them or anyone else etc.

An analogy, We think one should to be at least 18 years old to be an adult because people younger are not wise/knowledgeable enough to responsible on average. But this is (potentially) irrational, as a 17 year old may be much smarter and wiser then someone much older than them hence why politician X you don't like gets votes from those of voting age, and also that biological =/= chronological age, some one one day from their 18th birthday may be more biologically more matured then someone already 18 etc, chronological age is absolutely arbitrary. But practically, wisdom and intelligence, as well as biological age are not easily measured, hence why we used chronological age as proxy of what actually matters, which is more easily measured.

Likewise, A Living Human life of moral worth as apposed to a Living Human Life without moral worth are hard to distinguish, though Human life on its own is easily identified, I'd also argue almost all human life has moral worth and one without is a rare exception. I suppose such an event in isolation where a human could be killed without inflicting suffering making it without worth wouldn't be morally wrong, as it's the assumption above that its inflicting suffering which is morally wrong. But this is almost impossible to know practically and especially in a messy court of law. Thus, it's legally and even emotionally much more practical to consider all human lives to have worth. This is once again not an argument on morality, but from practicality on why humans do (not necessarily ought to) value other humans in terms of securing their self interest.

Also to restate why I mentioned the points for pragmatism. Even if it is morally okay to kill and exploit humans objectively, Humans are still going to have subjective reasons to strongly object to both for the ends of shared self interests, that we don't share with animals. I don't think its irrational or wrong for humans to give subjective worth to other humans over animals, even if its an emotional bias as if we where to rationalize past that emotional bias, we would have rational reasons for not to kill and exploit each other. Humans don't need a moral reason not to kill or exploit other humans.

I find it hard to justify a moral right to life and freedom from exploitation for animals but not plants. And yes the same for Humans, but once again humans don't need a moral reason not to kill or exploit other humans so it isn't an issue.

[EDIT - Sorry to everyone I haven't responded to, Thanks to everyone who pointed out the inconsistencies in my analogies! Needs work :) ]

[Edit 2 - A few people have suggested I am gatekeeping. FYI I will be the first to call someone vegan for any reason because I think the psychological concept "Self-perception theory" works.
I don't have an issue who calls themselves vegan. Don't really care. The more people checking the 'vegan' box on the census, the more positive that will be on normalizing veganism in society.
The purpose of this post (Which I obviously wrote very poorly, my bad) is for those of us seeking to accurately portray veganism in our own activism, and thinking. And that the sentence "humans should stop exploiting animals because of the environmental benefits that will provide us" shifts attention away from the issue being raised—that it's wrong to exploit animals, regardless of the environmental impact.

Thanks for everyone who responded. I will leave it there!]

(Vegan here hoping to be challenged on my view, I hope this is a different enough take on this topic, disregard if you are bored of it!)

"I'm vegan for the environment" is analogous to:

I'm against child labour for the higher quality clothing.
I oppose war for cheaper gas prices.
I support LGBTQ+ rights for my social reputation.
I support racial equality for my economic gain.
I donate to homeless shelters for better urban aesthetics.
I support women's rights for a stronger economy.

The environmental (or health) benefits of veganism are incidental/coincidental.

Assuming the definition of veganism is: the principle that humans should live without exploiting animals. It seems completely nonsensical to me to say "I think humans should live without exploiting animals...for the environment or health.
"I eat a plant-based diet for the environment" is fine. You are an environmentalist.
"I eat a plant-based diet because it aligns with the principle of veganism. You are a vegan.
You can be an environmentalist and a vegan at the same time!

Would anyone like to poke holes in/challenge my logic on this?
Or point out why some of the examples above don't work?

I think ethical vegans do not understand hunting whatsoever. First a deer in the wild will live about 10 years. Their only goal is to reproduce ans survive. They have no grand abitions beyond that and the way they die will be way more painful than a bullet or arrow. They will either starve, contract a terrible illness, get hurt and die from being unable to walk or infection or in some areas be ripped apart by wolves or a bear. When I and many other hunters kill an animal we are using as much as possible and taking what we need for our family. I get if you don't like the idea of killing animals, but hunting is ethical. We are also helping with the massive problems of over population and invasive populations.

and we should refer to them as people. There are probable exceptions, for example animals like coral or barnacles or humans in a vegetative state. But in general, and especially in accordance with the precautionary principle, animals should be considered to be persons.

There are accounts of personhood which emphasize reasoning and intelligence -- and there are plenty of examples of both in nonhuman animals -- however it is also the case that on average humans have a greater capacity for reasoning & intelligence than other animals. I think though that the choice to base personhood on these abilities is arbitrary and anthropocentric. This basis for personhood also forces us to include computational systems like (current) AI that exhibit both reasoning and intelligence but which fail to rise to the status of people. This is because these systems lack the capacity to consciously experience the world.

Subjective experience is: "the subjective awareness and perception of events, sensations, emotions, thoughts, and feelings that occur within a conscious state, essentially meaning "what it feels like" to be aware of something happening around you or within yourself; it's the personal, first-hand quality of being conscious and interacting with the world." -- ironically according to google ai

There are plenty of examples of animals experiencing the world -- aka exhibiting sentience -- that I don't need to list in this sub. My goal here is to get vegans to start thinking about & referring to nonhuman animals as people -- and by extension using the pronouns he, she & they for them as opposed to it. This is because how we use language influences¹ (but doesn't determine) how we think about & act in the world. Changing how we use language is also just easier than changing most other types of behavior. In this case referring to nonhuman animals as people is a way to, at least conceptually & linguistically, de-objectify them -- which is a small but significant step in the right direction.

¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

I have been thinking about the following point a little bit and I wanted to hear your opinions about it. And the point I have in mind is this. Even if being a vegan was the right thing to do in the sense of respecting animal life, animal rights, reducing animal suffering, saving the environment, etc, why would you still want to be a strict vegan?

I have an illustration of what I mean from my own life. I have a principle that I never drink alcohol. I think being an alcoholic is horrible and I'm never buying it, ever. But one time when I was offered one glass of champagne, I did drink it. Why? Because guess what, it doesn't matter. If you are literally drinking a few milliliters of alcohol in an entire year, then call me crazy but it absolutely doesn't matter at all. It's such a small amount that your body barely even notices it, and abstaining from alcohol even in that occasion would just be ridiculous. I didn't even particularly like it but I drank it anyway just to avoid of being seen as a weirdo. Similarly, I would never in a million years smoke cigarettes, but it's not the end of the world to me if I accidentally breath in some smoke from someone elses cigarettes. I didn't die and the world didn't end.

So for the same reason I think being a strict vegan is also ridiculous. I don't believe that veganism is ethical, but even if it was, it would be just silly to avoid eating even one gram of meat because a small amount like that literally doesn't matter at all. I mean, if you ate one fish that weighs like 20 grams once a year, it would have absolutely no effect on anything just like in the champagne illustration I explained above.

If you disagree of this, then how far would you take it? Would it even be wrong to breath in oxygen atoms if those atoms originated from a butchered animal? I hope you can see what I'm trying to say here.

But yet, some of vegans are so crazy that they become completely hysterical if they find out that they accidentally ate even a tiny bit of meat. And that's what I think is crazy, that's what I think is ridiculous. So all in all: my argument is that being a strict vegan in that sense makes absolutely no sense - even if all of the arguments for veganism were legitimate.

They are fictional and don’t affect real animals unless there are real ones used in the film. If they are CGI or animated animals, it is all good for me.

There are a lot of stray animals in the world due to overpopulation. A lot of vegans stress that people should just adopt and care for these animals not realizing that the majority of people from other cultures don’t care to have pets in their homes. They also may be living in poverty and don’t have the means to care for these animals. However, many people lack access to food that’s affordable so some will eat stray dogs, cats and pigeons off the streets. Ultimately, I believe that although gruesome, it solves the problem of excess stray animals as well as the hunger crisis. So why not just let them live? It may not be vegan, but it’s getting two birds with one stone.

I'm sold on the ethical argument for veganism. I see the personalities in the chickens I know, the goats I visit, the cows I see. I can't find a single convincing argument against the ethical veganistic belief. If I owned chickens/cows/goats, I couldn't kill them for food.

I still eat dead animal flesh on the regular. My day is to far away from the murder of sentient beings. Im never effected by those actions that harm the animals because Im never a direct part of it, or even close to it. While I choose to do the right thing in other aspects of my life when no one is around or even when no one else is doing the right thing around me, I still don't do it the right thing in the sense of not eating originally sentient beings.

I have no drive to change. Help.

Even while I write this and believe everything I say, me asking for help is not because I feel bad, it's more like an experiment. Can you make me feel enough guilt so I can change my behavior to match my beliefs. Am I evil!? Why does this topic not effect me like other topics. It feels strange.

Thanks 🙏 Sincerely, Hypocrite

Just wondering if anyone has an argument that can be made to those who are devoid of empathy and their only moral reasoning is "what benefits me?" I'll save you the six paragraph screed about morality is subjective and just lay down the following premises and conclusion:

P1: I don't care about the subjective experiences of others (human or not), only my own.

P2: If the pleasure/utility I gain from something exceeds the negative utility/cost to me (including any blowback and exclusively my share of its negative externalities), then it is good and worthwhile to me.

C1: I should pay for slave-produced goods and animal products even if alternatives are available with lower suffering/environmental destruction as long as I personally derive higher net utility from them, as stated in P2.

I realize this is a "monstrous" position and absolutely not one I personally share. But I'm not sure there's an argument that can be made against it. Hopefully you understand the thrust of the argument I'm making here even if the logic as I presented it isn't perfect.

I've just spent the last few days debating veganism with people and it's just impossible to change their minds unless they are already considering being a vegan.

They will just keep coming up with dumb excuses and ignoring the points you make.

A total waste of time and energy.

I actually, genuinely think it's the ethically correct move and I could probably do it even in my admittedly somewhat constrained circumstances (I'm sharing food with roommates and don't provide much myself). It kind of begs the question for me at this point...if I know it's the right thing why don't I do it, or at least do as much as I can? The answer is obvious, there's no one who would hold me accountable. I believe eating meat is an atrocious crime when at all avoidable, that might be extreme, but it's how I feel. I just don't care enough about being a good person for its own sake yet I guess, but I'm getting there. Obviously the potential enviornmental savings are even more important, but just my thought.

Edit: Thanks guys 🥲