I (and possibly others) in the past have given the reason why becoming Vegan is a moral imperative is that we humans (moral agents) have a duty to reduce our contribution to unnecessary suffering as it pertains to non-human animals (beings of moral value). The demarcation of which entities are worthy of moral value lies in that such a being has sentience and the capacity to suffer, non-human animals check both boxes. This seems all well and good with our intuition, but we're still left with a bunch of components of this goal not well-defined, most glaringly what is considered unnecessary in this context.

To put this into example, consider the case of a Vegan Bodybuilder or Vegan Junk Food. These are both instances in which intentional animal suffering and death occur for unnecessary purposes. I claim this is an intentional contribution to suffering since we know there are plenty of crop deaths associated with expanded agriculture and that it is unnecessary since we could just limit our consumption to what is necessary to sustain a healthy-diet. You might say a Vegan Bodybuilder may have less deaths "caused" by them than a Carnivorous Bodybuilder, so does a Vegetarian Bodybuilder or a Reductionist-Diet Bodybuilder.

So if we believe that there is a moral imperative for a Reductionist-Diet Bodybuilder to continue their reduction into Veganism for not reducing as much of their contribution to unnecessary suffering as possible, then couldn't a similar imperative be made of Vegan Bodybuilders to stop ingesting additional calories since there is still more intentional unnecessary suffering to be avoided?

Now some might claim that Veganism is an attempt at reducing intentional unnecessary suffering as much as practical, but then we are still drawing an arbitrary line on the lives we care about since what we think of as being practical is very subjective (the degree of practicality in proportion to the lives that are lost).

So if we don't follow are own moral imperative to it's logical conclusion (not reprimanding Vegan Bodybuilders), then aren't we just being hypocritical when we present Veganism as a moral imperative to non-vegans in order to be morally consistent?

I am curious if anyone disagrees with this analysis or if you have a different reasoning as to why becoming a Vegan is a moral imperative. NOTE: I'm aware that the title is tad bit crudely stated and sorry if the post is a tad bit everywhere.

For exemple, you could be asked if you use the same kind of logic while buying clothes to avoid child exploitation ?

Do you have some kind of mindset that "work" for any important cause ?

If not, do you have an exemple of a cause where your logic cannot be applied in the same way, or at least make the comparison "weaker" ?

Edit : how would you describe that logic/philosophy in an universal way ?

What would be the next move if Meat was actually necessary?

We all know it is possible to be healthy and happy without meat.

In a hypothetical world in which we HAD to eat meat to not die (in a world where there is a Vitamin Q and it can only be obtained through meat), what is the next move? How to go about this?

I had posted on Vegan reddit but I guess I am banned from it sadly...

I personally eat this sort of meat, but am open to changing my mind. These are my arguments for why I eat humane certified meat. (FYI I only really eat one product, this being it. It’s got level 4 animal welfare and is also a part of the better chicken project. https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/brands/marys-free-range here’s the link.)

A. The animals have a guaranteed age they’ll live to, unlike in the wild, where many don’t make it past the infancy or juvenile stage.

B. They are obviously well fed, low stress, and have plenty of social interaction

C. This idea is pretty rough and not super developed, so if you need any elaboration, I’ll be happy to do so. It’s something I’ve called The Idea Of Continuance. You see, the animals I eat will in a way, become me. As in, their cells become mine, which comprise my being. So it’s less like they died and are gone forever, but more so a transfer of energy, to my being. They, or I should say we, will experience life through my eyes, all the hardships and splendors of being human.

I look forward to hearing what y’all have to say.

The same topic keeps popping up, a way to simplify the inquiry’s on when it’s morally permissible to consume animal flesh, is when it’s also equally morally permissible to commit cannibalism.

Are you in a survival situation? Do you have no other option than to consume flesh in order to perpetuate your existence? Is the animal or human threatening your survival?

And yes if you felt the need to you could eat roadkill ethically, the same way that if you found a dead human body you could also ethically consume their flesh. Granted there are probably laws that you would be breaking, but it would still be ethical as long as you weren’t the cause of death.

I don’t understand why anyone would be desperately looking for extreme hypotheticals which permit the consumption of dead flesh, but that is how it could be done ethically.

( if you have anything you would like to debate then feel free to present your case, but this post is designed to be more of a learning tool for vegans because theres not much here that a person upholding moral standards would want to contest. )

Hi, I am not a vegan, but I have some curiosities concerning ethical veganism. Although I do not doubt that a vegan diet is almost certainly more moral than an omnivore lifestyle, what is your opinion on circumstances where that may not be the case?

For example, any situation where a wild animal dies of its own accord, excess animal products such as chicken eggs and (sometimes) honey, or wild animals killed humanely as to prevent overpopulation or damage to an ecosystem. If the main goal of veganism is to limit animal suffering, would you see it as morally acceptable to permit scenarios like these where suffering is either nonexistent or minimal?

If a driver falls asleep in the middle of the road and causes an accident that kills someone, he did something wrong despite him not having any intention to kill anybody.

Yet, if a vegan buys food they don't need that ends up killing a certain number of animals, there's nothing wrong because their intention wasn't to kill animals.

I see a lot of responses from vegans that are are very dogmatic in their approach to "exploitation". I understand the sentiment - they are trying to eradicate the view that animals are there for us to use. However, I think a more nuanced approach needs to be had, because treating this rule as absolute negates the possibility for co-existence with animals in a way that benefits both our species and theirs.

My argument is this: the rearing of an animal because of some benefit it provides you is not automatically exploitation in the pejorative sense.

Exhibit A: Pets. I am sure there are vegans out there that say they are opposed to keeping animals as pets, but if we are to be morally consistent with the idea that we demand animal liberation now, and that all benefit derived from animals is immoral, then pets would fall under that category, and we should all be saying that owning pets is immoral.

Most people love their pets. They take care of them when they get sick, they feed them, and they don't abuse them. They benefit emotionally from having the pet, and the pet can serve practical purposes such as home defense. We get a lot from pets, and our lives are generally better for it, but at the end of the day, pets are slaves. They do not have the option to leave their masters. They are legally treated as property. They are forbidden from expressing many of their natural behaviors (barking, chewing furniture, peeing indoors). However, they are safe from predators, given a steady supply of food, and given plenty of love and affection.

To me, it's impossible to say that the way we treat pets is any different than the way a kind slave owner treats their human slaves. Yet we say having pets is fine, and having slaves is wrong. What is the distinction here? If animals deserve similar moral consideration to humans, why do we consider one morally permissible, and one wrong?

Note, I am not saying that owning pets is wrong. On the contrary. I think it's mutually beneficial. The dogs (non-consensually) give up their freedom for security, but their lives are better for it.

If you agree with me on the idea that owning pets is ok, given the fact that their lives are good enough that it outweighs the deprivation of their freedom, then where do we draw the line?

Exhibit B: Riding Horses. Many people keep horses as pets. We've established that most people think that's ok, as long as they are healthy and have enough room to run around and aren't kept inside a barn all day. However, many people who keep horses as pets also ride them on occasion. Vegans have taken a dogmatic approach to this and say that riding a horse is always immoral, as it is exploitation. But why?

Now, I will be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on horses or riding horses, but it seems to me that it's possible to ride a horse in a way that increases their wellbeing rather than detracts from it. Horses like to run, and they develop close bonds with their owners. The process of training a horse can involve both negative and positive reinforcement, sometimes involving physical pain and discomfort, I don't doubt that, but is that enough to say that the horse is suffering? I don't think it's so clear. Humans experience physical pain in the gym, and yet we do not say that we are suffering (Well, maybe the day after leg day we would say so), because we have the intelligence to apply reason to the situation and dismiss the pain as part of a greater pleasure that we get benefit from.

I don't believe that things like whips or spurs should ever be used in the process of training or riding a horse, but shouldn't we say that those things are wrong, rather than simply saying that riding the horse is wrong? If the horse enjoys it and doesn't experience any more discomfort than what we experience in the gym, isn't that a benefit to the animal?

There are obviously ways to take it too far, to the point that the horse is being driven to do something that it doesn't want to do or is too exhausted to do, but that's where nuance comes in. Just as we say it's ok to train your dog, but it's not ok to beat them when they don't do what you ask, we can say that it's ok to train and ride a horse, as long as you don't push it too far.

Like I said, I'm not very educated about horses, so I could be way off base here. Please correct me if I've missed some reason that riding horses automatically causes suffering and should always be wrong.

Exhibit C: Manure. Manure is obviously very beneficial for plant agriculture. There are alternatives that don't require animal manure, such as synthetic manure and compost, but neither are as effective as the real deal.

The problem with manure, ethically, is that it has to come from an animal, such as a cow. The manure we have, we get as a byproduct of cattle that are raised for their flesh or their milk. Obviously, as a vegan, I am opposed to that. But I'm not opposed to cows existing, and I'm not opposed to humans raising cows. The problem is that, practically, raising cows purely for their manure is not profitable.

However, there are places where cows are raised as pets, or rescued. Sanctuaries are an example. In this case, we still feed the cows, and they give us manure. If we were to take this manure and use it as a product for fertilizer, it seems to me that this would violate a very strict approach to not treating animal excretions as products, and yet I see nothing ethically wrong with it. The cow is living a happy life, and is not going to be harmed in any way. In the course of its life, it's going to poop. The cow doesn't need its poop, but we have ways to use it. Is it wrong to do so? I think it would be absurd to think that it is, and yet this would fall under "exploitation" for many vegans.

Anyways, thank you for reading my rant. In general, I think it's a good rule of thumb that we should avoid instances of deriving benefit from animals. But we should also be willing to have conversations about more nuanced cases and say when it's actually wrong or when it's permissible.

Therefore if you want to be more ethical, eat meat!!!!! It saves more animals.

Think about it. More agriculture means more pesticides/insecticides.

You need them to protect your food. And even if technically possible somehow to grow food without them, you will be alot poorer considering the reduction in Agricultural output if you don't.

I see alot of vegans don't mind them anyways because it's self defense because the insects are attacking your food which you need to survive.

But here's the thing though, the insects don't know that. They're relying on instinct and the result is still MORE ANIMALS DIE.

Now what happens when more people shift from animal+plant diet to just animal diet?

Well, you need to grow more veggies, grains and fruits. Meaning you need to kill more insects.

Do more insects die with veganism? Absolutely.

Do more animals die with veganism? I would say POSSIBLY yes.

There are way more insects than cows.

Now even if it is done in self defense it still was not necessary. If you don't need to walk in the bad part of town, risk getting mugged and possibly fighting back and needing to possibly kill someone in self defense, why do it? Assuming it's equally as convenient to avoid that area. Now it's especially the case when these insects don't know better.

So yes it's self defense but it's unnecessary to initiate it.

So with carnism you might actually be saving net more lives than veganism.

It could literally be thousands of ants and crickets lives saved for one cow.

And yes I am assuming 1 cricket's life is equivalent to that of one cow.

Personally even if I had the tendency to avoid the laws of nature and want to be a vegan. And that's a big IF, this alone would prevent me as it's more compassionate towards animals.

So all in all.... SAVE THE ANIMALS, EAT MEAT!

Edit: okay animals need to est crops good point. But how about fish?

Or how about animals that aren't farmed in general?

Like what about a wild Buffalo that i hunt myself or a deer?

Not all animals need crops. Especially if you eat meat by hunting it.

                          ................................................

#Edit: my bad.

Okay I concede. As it stands more animals die since the industry relies on more crops to feed the animals overall.

Seems pretty obvious but I didn't think of it at first.

Hunting is a separate topic and should have it's own post.

comment

Traditional vegan farming causes lots of insects to die due to pesticides. These are often justified by claiming them a necessity, but given that we could theoretically grow our own food with veganic farming methods and avoid pesticides alltogether, are they really? It seems like buying vegan food from the supermarket still causes unnecessary suffering to animals.

Someone is going to bring up the "as far as possible and practicable" part of the definition of veganism, but isn't growing our own food, or at least as much of it as is physically possible, perfectly practicable? Even if you live in the middle of a city and have no garden, you could probably rent an allotment, move somewhere else or grow something in your flat.

But at the end of the day, we all seem to value our own convenience over the lives of insects. Any thoughts on this?

From what I got from comments. The definition of veganism is:

To not cause needlessly suffering to sentient animals. Not eating animals only for environmental issues are not veganism, but a plant-based diet. (Correct me if I’m wrong)

Are Humans under the idea of sentient animals? We are animals, and we are sentient. So I imagine we are. How long do you think humans can go before causing needlessly suffering to each other?

At what point can it be considered needlessly the suffering of another human being?

Ex: Someone sexually assaulted another person. Given there is not an immediate life and death situation. The killing of another human being is off the limits. So jailing the criminal right? How long in jail would be necessary to consider needed?

We as a whole society, can’t even go a decade without causing needlessly suffering to others people. If we can’t change that, what says other animals?

Do we separate ourselves from these other sentient animals? If we do, are these other animals superior than us? Lesser? If we can categorize animals in rankings, then why can’t we categorize which can be eaten or killed? And if we do it to animals then that leaves the door open to categorize humans, making up for things like racism, homophobia, etc. (like many vegans point it out to me).

Is it realistic for the whole world to be vegan? I truly don’t think it is. But the whole world being in a plant-based diet? Yes, but is that what veganism is about? Doing the “right” things for the wrong reasons enough?

The issue I have is with "as far as possible and practicable". I assume this is here to cover for extreme edge cases, but if all practicable means is "able to be done or put into practice successfully" then I fail to see how it achieves this, and also seems kind of redundant.

Take a vegan who has to take non-vegan medication to survive, it may not be sensible but they would still be perfectly able to refuse the medication, making it technically "possible and practicable".

A simple fix would to be just preface it with a word like "reasonably", though this may introduce issues of vagueness.

I'm vegan myself but decided to bring this up here because I'm mildly appalled that some vegans have a knee-jerk reaction to considering this one.

What do you think should happen for: Inuit people who cannot live in their homelands without meat eating due to the climate making it too hard to grow crops; and Mongolian nomads who have a way of life involving almost entirely animal products?

The whitetail deer has a life expectancy of about 4-6 years. For us, this may seem like a very short amount of time. However I can assure you that 4-6 years in a white tail deers position is long enough. The whitetail deer does not have that many major predators as they are a relatively large, fast and intelligent animal. Their predators include very large and aggressive animals which can make for an unfortunate circumstances for the deer. The three main predators for whitetail deer in Florida are black bears, bobcats and coyotes. These three animals are top predators in their environment and can make a nice meal out of a deer. Fawns, or young deer, are generally the target for these predators because they are easier prey to catch.
As one can imagine, the process of getting eaten alive by any of those three predators would be torture. This process can endure for hours and even days, causing major suffering for the animal. Although this is often not the case for adult deer. The adult whitetails main predator is you and I. This is not only the work of hunters but also vehicle collisions and loss of habitat. Hunters are taught from day one to aim for the vital organs of the animal and there are multiple reasons for this. A shot through the vital organs also leaves almost all of the meat in tact, resulting in the best harvest possible for the hunter. It also ensures a quick death for the animal if done correctly. Typically, a deer that has been shot in the vitals will expire within 30 minutes of being shot. This creates a fast, relatively painless death for the animal. Very experienced hunters can fire rounds with such accuracy they can almost guarantee a hit to the vital areas, killing the deer almost instantly with little to no suffering at all.
When a deer is caught by a predator this is not a quick event. The deer will often sense the predator coming and then a chase will begin. This is not as extreme of a chase as you may see with a cheetah and a gazelle, however the end result is usually similar. When harvesting a deer, there is no stress involved before the shot. The deer is completely unaware making the process faster and providing less suffering for the deer.
Now you may be wondering about the deer that avoided the predators, avoided the hunters and avoided the vehicles. Now at age 7, what happens to the mature whitetail deer? Deer are herbivores and spend a lot of their time chewing and grinding food. Eventually all the chewing takes its toll on the deer and their teeth will begin to grind down and rot away. This leaves the deer with little to no teeth left making it impossible for the deer to chew or eat anything, leaving it to starve to death. Unlike humans, deer usually don’t die of old age. Eventually they will get old enough that something will kill them. Whether it be a predator, a human, a brutal winter or an injury, none of them sound like a better option than being harvested by a hunter.

I would love to hear some opinions from other views. This is a part of my college project on the overall morality of deer hunting.

I've seen quite a few threads on r/DebateAVegan where OP makes all sorts of grand standing declarations, has all sorts of "arguments" against what they think is veganism and except for the post OP doesn't participate any further.

I have a lot of trouble restraining myself from downvoting such posts and respect the don't downvote rule.

What's y'all's and the mods opinion on that? Can we downvote posts where OP never commented after the posts after a few hours?

There's posts out there with over a hundred comments, not one from OP... This doesn't seem normal for a debate sub.

generally speaking, we care

1. people we know more than people we don't know
2. animals we know more than animals we don't know
3. people we don't know more than animals we don't know

if you don't agree to "3", you can skip this post...:) otherwise, being a vegan should automatically make you care MORE about random people suffering in the world

russia invades ukraine. lots of people suffering. china invades xinjiang and tibet. lots of people suffering. to name but a few. what have you done on these?

if you think buying products from animal farms is a form of support to them, so is buying products from those governments or corporations owned / subsidized by those governments

if you don't know for example buying a huawei cellphone is actually supporting china government, you are ignorant

if you know that and still buy it, you are contradicting "3". you are willing to do something that can lower the chance of random animals suffering but not willing to do something that can lower the chance of random people suffering

Vegans often claim that their morality is superior and more consistent because they give moral consideration to all sentient beings instead of just humans. The reason this makes no sense to me is that most of our morals evolved in the context of how to behave in a society of moral actors (humans). The reason the moral golden rule exists and became a touch point across most common religions is because it creates more stable and functional societies. Even atheists abide to it (or at least, I do) because its value to our society is undeniable: By all behaving with other people the same way we would like people to behave with us, we get a society that treats us well, maximizing the benefits from our coexistence. This principle is deeply ingrained into our cultures, we have been "brainwashed" with it since childhood (for good reasons), to the point that most identify with it. Nonetheless, we should not lose track of why this principle exists in the first place and its rightful context. Extending the golden rule to contexts outside our society is quite arbitrary and makes no rational sense. Our society is not going to improve from treating cows the same way we treat other people because the cows lack moral agency to participate to our society the same way people do. Not to kill or not to steal are not universal principles in our universe (if anything, the opposite is true). They are solid principles only in the context of our human society.

Note: Of course, the above assumes you are not vegan for religious reasons. If you are, I respect that and the above doesn’t apply since you don’t need rational reasons to believe in the golden rule and nothing prevents your religion to extend it to animals.

https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-humane-league/2018-nov/#rf1-4-24548

https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/corporate-campaigns-affect-9-to-120-years-of-chicken-life-per-dollar-spent

​

As these studies show, every dollar you spend could be used to spare several animals, and several years worth of animal suffering on factory farms. The humane league was estimated to prevent about 6-13 animals from being bred into industrial farming (via reducing # of animals bred altogether OR effective campaigns leading to the animals being raised on non-industrial farms with high welfare standards). Corporate Cage-Free Egg campaigns cause 10 years of Hen life to be spent in vastly better conditions. There are several other charities ranked with similar effectiveness by ACE. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donation-advice/recommended-charities/

​

If you already donate to your local animal rescue, I would strongly urge you to consider donating to farm initiatives instead. Shelters for pets use significantly less of your donation for actual animal-related initiatives. Your dollars are much more effective in terms of animals affected in farm initiatives. And shelters often feed the animals they house by buying meat for them, further decreasing the overall effectiveness of your intervention.

​

If you don't donate at all, you may be thinking that your only moral obligation is to not do harm, not to actively do vast amounts of good. But do you really think that you aren't at the very least strongly compelled, and shouldn't feel a duty, to spare vast amounts of animal suffering more effectively than essentially any cause in the world by sacrificing trivial luxuries for yourself? If you came across a wild animal suffocating under a fallen branch whilst on a walk, but going and lifting the branch would cause you some slight discomfort and get your pants dirty, would you not feel compelled to prioritize the vast suffering and life of the animal over your own comfort? Would you not feel extremely wrong for leaving the animal to continue suffering when all you had to do was get your pants dirty? One of the common arguments for veganism is that eating meat puts your own minor pleasure and convenience over the vast suffering and death of an animal. Unless you really think there is a massive difference between doing harm yourself and refusing to spare others from harm, the same argument should apply here. *After all, you are here trying to convince people to go vegan (which certainly doesn't fall under mitigating the harm you do to the world) at the cost of your brain-cells, so why refuse to do something vastly more effective?

Moreover, many of the things you spend on are not even good for yourself. Some vegan ice cream is poor for your health and expensive, but you'd still choose to buy it rather than doing real good on a very high scale.

​

Think of what Batman does by dedicating his life to fighting crime in Gotham. Despite all his efforts and sacrifices, he still hurts many people, makes mistakes, and never even truly realizes real extreme progress. Many people would think that when you have a unique ability to do a lot of good, you are morally obligated to do so, or at least strongly compelled to, instead of prioritizing your own normalcy. But we as overwhelmingly well-off people in first world countries do, in fact, have a unique ability to have outsized effects on the world around us.

Now think of what the average income person in first-world countries could do by donating just 5% to one of these charities. You could effect 15,000 + animals by giving up a few luxuries while otherwise living a pretty normal life and clicking a few buttons on your computer. And, of course, you could completely revamp your lifestyle and be many times MORE impactful than that.

So I was vegan for 3-4 years, and while I was I based that belief on a kind of utilitarian principle, something like:

• 1: it’s wrong to cause unnecessary suffering

• 2: animals can suffer

• 3: therefore it’s wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals

• 4: consuming animal products causes unnecessary suffering to animals

• 5: therefore it’s wrong to consume animal products

However, I think this argument is not valid and no one lives according to this in practice. Realising this was one of the main things that undercut my veganism.

If we accept (3), we would behave very differently to how we actually do. It doesn’t just entail veganism. For example, it seems that if (3) is true then I have to eat only the number of calories that I strictly need to survive, because otherwise I’m eating more food than I need and therefore causing more harm to animals than is needed.

But if I’m not willing to give up vegan junk foods like chocolate, which I could give up with no negative impact to my health (if anything it would probably improve my health), then it seems like I must accept that there is some acceptable trade off between animal suffering and my own pleasure which I’m willing to make. And if I’m willing to make that trade off then the line of not consuming animal products seems somewhat arbitrary.

I know most vegans are not utilitarians, but rather deontologists: they’re convinced it’s wrong to consume animal products almost axiomatically. I initially tried to fall back on something like deontology but I ultimately found it unconvincing.

So I think this is one of the issues with utilitarian justifications for veganism, and it’s why I’m no longer vegan.

According to most vegans, there's no problem for predators like lions to hunt and eat meat. Why then is it "wrong" for humans to do so? This reeks very much of slave morality, in which humans, the apex predator on the planet, are expected to feel bad for our dominance over weaker beings. This is a speciesist double standard against humanity.

This is further compounded by many arguments I see, which state that not only is it "wrong" to kill animals, it's "wrong" to eat or use them even if they're already dead. This logic, that humans may not benefit from an animal, even when there is zero suffering being caused, blatantly reveals that the foundation of veganism is anti-human, not pro-animal.

I personally will not accept any framework of morality in which I have fewer rights than wild animals.

Quite often when discussing veganism, the phrase "we don't NEED to eat animals" will pop up. The thing is, necessities aren't objective entities which apply equally to all human beings, so why do vegans feel they're the ones who can claim what is or isn't a necessity to the rest of the population?

If a person's most pleasurable experiences stem from being able to eat meat, is that not a necessity? Because if we're going the by the most strict definition of what constitutes a necessity, eating surplus calories isn't a necessity either, and I'm pretty you already know about this crop deaths issue.

What if someone understands that the Bible permits eating meat but feels a personal conviction to not partake because they feel it is immoral to kill and eat animals if they can just live off plants?

Hi, vegetarian here. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly on the not killing animals part, I’m interested to see your take on animal products such as milk, honey, eggs etc. I have 2 points I want to mention and I’d like to see your thoughts on them

1. farming: many animals farmed for milk and eggs would not survive in the wild as we have domesticated them too far. We would risk damage to ecosystems or killing of more animals if we removed a place they can safely live at the cost of milk and eggs being taken.

2. the environment: many substitutes for milk etc use soybeans which require mass deforestation to produce.

Disclaimer: I’m mainly doing this because I want to see what vegans think on this issue, not because I want to be antagonistic but I should warn you I will play devils advocate if it keeps an interesting discussion going.

Whilst there does seem to be some degree of a split in the vegan community regarding the definition of veganism, the majority seem to hold the following belief:

Veganism is not just about what you eat. It is about what you believe. It is an ideology, not a diet.

I recognize some vegans don't believe this, I am sure you have been told you are not a real vegan. However, this comes up fairly often, especially when people discuss being plant-based yet not believing fully in some vegan ideals. These people are usually told they are not vegans, they are plant-based and what follows is usually a comment regarding how the definition of veganism needs to remain clear and consistent. Fair enough. I also think it needs to remain clear and consistent. The definition I see quoted most often is the Vegan Societies, which is:

"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"

It is this last sentence I think causes some problems, as the the same word is being used to describe two different things. One is a philosophy, one is a diet. I have seen quite often in this sub people noting they are vegan for health reasons only to be told they are not in fact vegan because they don't believe eating meat is wrong, despite practicing a "vegan" diet. However, the same camp seems to be very firm on ensuring their definition of vegan remains intact. As such, I believe this means that the word vegan needs to be removed from plant-based foods. For example, vegan cafe's or vegan restaurants should not be using the term unless they exclusively are serving philosophically inclined vegans, and people who are plant-based but don't subscribe to that definition of veganism, should not be asking for vegan food. If these definitions are important, then they should be respected across the board. The issue I think is that separate word is not really used ubiquitously. Plant-based restaurant doesn't quite roll of the tongue.

I think about the wording of things like halal and kosher. The word describes food that is suitable for the ideology. The word used to describe the ideology is not also described as the food. It's not called Muslim food or Jewish food. That would imply it is food designed only for people of the Muslim or Jewish ideology. Anyone can eat halal or kosher, it just means that Muslims and Jews can also eat it.

I am not a vegan, but I mostly eat plant-based and when I go to a venue or ask for food, it doesn't seem right to ask for vegan food, because I am not a vegan. I don't want or seek the vegan label or title and I do not want to ask for food that implies I am of a specific philosophical belief. However, I get the impression that vegans would rather this ambiguity in the wording in this regard as it helps make the term more ubiquitous and keeps the word veganism in the cultural mind. It benefits the vegan society to have ambiguity in this regard, despite advocating for conciseness in other ways.

Anyway, I am just pointing out something I believe to be wrong and have some degree of hypocrisy. Ultimately, creating new words to refine these definitions in practice would more or less be impossible. I don't think we should refer to plant-based food as vegan food, because it isn't just for vegans. But at this point it's too late to change. Ultimately I believe it does both vegans and those who practice plant-based diets a disservice and I think if we could separate the concept of plant-based food being for vegans, then maybe more people would be inclined to consider the diet because it would no longer come with the stigma associated with vegan groups.

We can only blame the reality of animal suffering on nature. It isn't an idea created by humans.

Yes we have the option to only eat meat because we just so happen to be omnivores. But that's due to random luck. If we were obligate carnivores I doubt you'd call for being vegan.

We're just one species that happens to eat other species of animals.

The stupid vegan videos online that show all the suffering of various animals who are trapped and suffer immense pain do to our consumption of these animals is stupid. Because this suffering exists regardless of human interference. The suffering won't end when we stop consuming meat. It's literally almost entirely useless and all it does is limit our experience at best and our need for variety as worst.

Our contribution to this suffering is so incredibly miniscule it's silly to point the cameras at these suffering animals to try and make meat eaters feel bad for it.

I might think this movement made any sense if human contribution to this suffering was like 20%?

And maybe even more so if the concept of carnivorous predation was invented by humans and not nature.

Edit: okay before this post is even approved, for honesty purposes, I did a quick research on Google and yeah the 0.0...1% figure in the title was intended as an exaggeration, it's still probably significantly larger than that given that and I say this because apparently Google says human biomass is 2.5% of all animal biomass meaning we probably cause more than 0.0...1% of the total suffering but I mean my point still stands that whatever it is it's pretty neglible.

Edit 2: then again the biomass is kind of wrong to use because if 1 human is equal to a hundred thousand ants, the suffering of 100 thousand ants is 100 thousand individuals suffering but the human is just one.

So I think we do indeed cause a very neglible amount of the suffering especially because we eat larger animals like cows.

Vegan here, I am going to play Devil's advocate on this one.

Pesticides used for protecting crops kill countless insects. As far as I'm aware, there are no hard numbers on this, but we can be fairly sure that the numbers are huge. These insect deaths are problematic. Maybe insects count less than bigger animals, but the sheer number of victims should overcompensate this.

Now, farm animals obviously eat a whole lot of these crops as well, rendering the argument useless as a justification for buying meat at the supermarket, but hunting or fishing does avoid these insect deaths. Hunting is of course very unsustainable, but if it only happened on a very small scale, it seems like it might actually cause less animal suffering. So from a purely utilitarian point of view, if someone came along and claimed they got 99% of their calories from plants and 1% from hunting AND are willing to stop the minute a farming method is developed that avoids insect deaths, would you hold it against them?

If in a far future humanity explores the space (lets suposse that at that time veganism is the law among all humanity) and makes peaceful contact with an inteligent species that is carnivore and haves a great carnist industry (they only can eat meat, so they're not carnist by choice) ¿What should humanity do?, ¿How would be diplomacy with that civilization?

I can’t seem to justify eating meat from a ethical point of view. Mainly because I can get nutrition from other means and do not need to kill an animal to stay alive. However, predator animals need to do so to live. If consuming a predator animal, like certain fish, how would you consider this as a moral question? Is it more moral to consume meat from predator animals rather than an animal who is purely herbivore or omnivore? Thank you. I could not find any diologue on this question.

While I think the primary reasons for being vegan are ethical reasons, I also believe that a plant-based diet is the healthiest option, and that cessation of animal farming is better for the environment.

But I thought it might be interesting to look at the ethical considerations of veganism under a different lens - what if that wasn't the case?

How important is the claim that veganism is the correct ethical choice against the health and environmental benefits? If the roles were reversed, and veganism was worse for your health and the environment, does that change the calculus for whether an individual ought to be vegan or not?

It's difficult to answer this hypothetical without looking at concrete examples, because the degree of health and environmental impact may weigh into whether that means one ought be vegan, so let's put some bounds on the hypothetical. Say that all the health benefits that vegans claim are instead found to be true for a primarily omnivorous diet, and all the health risks associated with meat are instead found to be true of a plant-based diet. Say all of the environmental factors are reversed as well, where an agricultural system to support an omnivorous diet actually uses less land and causes less GHG emissions, as well as all the other environmental factors that vegans bring up.

Does that change your opinion on whether you would be vegan or not? If not, how bad would things have to be for you to say that it would be permissible to switch to an omnivorous diet?

I recently came across a survey indicating that liberals in the West tend to support veganism. However, in India it's the complete opposite, Indian liberals often lean towards supporting meat consumption. They justify this stance by advocating for everyone's right to choose their own food. What are your thoughts on this? Should humans really have the "right" to take away an animal's right to live? P.S. I'm a vegan.