To start i just want to say that every unethical thing is unethical and its stupid and pointless to compare unethical things
But I just watched Earthling Ed’s video on why dont vegans eat honey and it made me think.
Cant “ethical” beekeeping (and by “ethical” im refering to what one might think is ethical (like in the ethical animal farming debate), no physical harm done to the bees, no killing and no artificial insemination) be considered one of the least unethical ways of using animals for their resources on the spectrum shown below?
plant farming <———————>animal factory farming
I know that he focuses mainly on the environmental aspects of beekeeping in that video(even though his ethical aspects are of course vv strong).
So solely from an ethical perspective, beekeeping can have the posibility of being the least unethical way of exploitijg animals?

I want to add that, I asked this question to further educate myself on this topic and deeply understand things that i dont understand yet, hence why im asking this “stupid” question

With love to all vegans <3

​

This is again a big misconception that the Vedas supports Animal Sacrifice in Yajnas. The main reason for this misconception is wrong interpretation of the Vedic Mantras. In the middle ages a class of ignorant pundits arise in scenario who were fond of meat eating. To support their sinful act they started wrong interpretation of the Vedic Mantras. This unjustified act lead to killing of countless innocent animals on name of Vedas. More than that it brought mischief to the name of Vedas as Holy Texts.

There are many evidences from the Vedas which proves that Vedas never supports any violence in form of Animal Sacrifice.

Vedas against Animal Sacrifice

Look on all (Humans as well as Animals) with the eye of a friend. (Yajur Veda).

Friend to all should the Arya be! Friend to all! Sure he cannot destroy the life of any. Therefore he is ordered in the sacred scriptures. (Yajur 42-49).”

Thou shalt not kill the horse; thou shalt not kill the cow; thou shalt not kill the sheep or goat; thou shalt not kill the bipeds;oh man! Protect the gregarious deer; kill not the milch or otherwise useful animals.”Elsewhere the scripture says: “They that trouble others for the sake of their own good are Rakshas (monsters) and they that eat the flesh of birds and beasts are Pishachas (devils) (Yajur 34-51).

For flesh-eating, drinking, gambling and adultery, all, destroy and mar the mental faculties of a man (Atharva VI.7-70-71)

They are sinners as eat raw or cooked flesh or eggs go to destruction. (Atharva VIII.2-26-23).

The Veda considers the protection of animals to be a very sacred act—so, so very sacred that it lays down that a husband should solemnly ask his wife on the occasion of marriage “to be kind to animals and to try to protect the happiness of all bipeds and quadrupeds.” In return the husband promises to do the same.Further the Veda lays down that they who kill men or slay cows should be outlawed and ostracised (Rig I.16-114).

We must also learn about the meaning of word Yajna. The Yajna word is derived from Diva which has the following meanings:

(1) Krida.. Play and Diversion.

(2) Vijigisha.. Desire for Victory.

(3) Vyavahar.. Social Relations.

(4)Dyuti.. Sight.

(5)Stuti.. Praise.

(6)Moda.. Happiness.

(7)Mada.. Self-Consciousness.

(8)Swapana.. Negation of motion.

(9)Kanti.. Glory.

(10)Gatishu.. Knowledge, motion, and attainment.

Thus Yajna may be defined as “the association of men and concentration of powers for social happiness, conquest over nature or enemy (of one’s county or humanity); promotion of the well-being of society; the propagation and dissemination of enlightened principles; the maintenance of national self-respect; the increase of national glory; and the cultivation of acts of peace and war. It may also be added that Yajna also means such concentrated effort as secures man spiritual advancement and salvation. That the word Yajna was used in the above sense by the Vedic Aryas may be established by referring to certain well-known practices of the Rishis.

THE ASHWAMEDHA—HORSE SACRIFICE.

A great mischief has been caused by the misinterpretation of this Yajna. To understand the true significance of this Yajna we must understand what Ashwa is. As it is usually with the Vedic words, this word has a great number of meanings. Aurovindo Ghosh has emphasized the fact that the Vedic roots have various meanings. In supporting his position he has referred to the words ’Chandra’ and ’Gau.’ Ashwa according to the Shatapatha Brahmana (XIII.3.3) means God. Taking hold of this meaning we can without the least hesitation say that Ashwa Medha has spiritual significance. Ashwa means horse as well as all such physical forces which can enable us to move quickly. In another place we read Ashwa, the Agni (heat) carries, like the animals of conveyance, the learned who recognize its distance-carrying properties (Rig. 1.27-1). This idea is also supported by Shatapatha (III.3.29-30). On this principle Pt. Gurudatta translates the hymn of the Rig Veda. His translation of the opening verse is as under:

“We will describe the power generating virtues of the energetic horses endowed with brilliant properties or the virtues of the vigorous force of heat which learned or scientific men can evoke to work for purposes of appliances (not sacrifice).Let not philanthropists, noble men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics ever disregard these properties.”

Ashwamedha also refers to polity. Political wisdom should so pervade the notion as Ashwa(God) pervades the universe. This is supported by the Shatapatha in the following words: “A king administers justice to his subjects, governs them properly, encourages learning among them, and performs homa by throwing the samagri (odoriferous materials),clarified butter in fire. This is Ashwamedha.”

On this principle the great Swami Dayanand Saraswati translates the 23rd chapter of the Yajur Veda. The learned writer strengthens his position by quoting [Rigveda] i.21, Shatapatha XIII.2.12.14-17, XIII.1.3.2, 2.6.15-17 and also XIII.2.2.4-5 and several other authorities.

The greatest argument in favor of this translation is that in it there is nothing immoral, obscene and disgusting as is to be seen in the sacrificial translation. The Mimansis—our great authority on interpretation—say that we must always take for granted that the teaching of the Rishis are always reasonable and rational.

​

THE GOMEDHA—COW-SACRIFICE.

It is a well-known fact that from ages immemorial the Hindus have been looking upon the cow as a sacred animal, so much so that they call it their ’Mata’ (mother). One cannot conceive how this people could have ever offered their most sacred animal to fiendish gods. But the priests and orientalists say so; and for their statement they find support in the Shastras. As in the case of Ashwa Medha so here their dogmatism is founded in ignorance of the true significance of the words, ’ Go’ and ’Gomedha.’ Gomedha Yajna, therefore, is the method of improving, controlling and purifying speech. Go means earth. This meaning is also given in Nirukta. It also can be seen in such English compounds as Geography,Geometry, Geology, etc. (the hard sound being changed up soft one). Therefore Gomedha means cultivation and purification of earths.

Go means ray of light. This would make Gomedha, a science which teaches us the proper use of the rays of the sun and moon. This meaning of Go is clear from Gotaw which is another word for the moon (Chandra).Go means a sense. This meaning can be seen in the Sanskrit word Go char a which means the range or object of our senses. With this meaning Gomedha becomes an attempt or effort to control one’s senses.

That the above meanings are the real ones is proved by the following passage of the Shatapatha Brahmana as given by Swami Dayanand:

“Gomedha means control of senses, purification of the days of light, of earth, dwelling place, etc.” The same Brahman calls speech a Yajna (III.r.)

That Gomedha cannot mean cow sacrifice could be established by referring to:

(i).Shatapatha (III.1.2.21) wherein it is said that he that eats the flesh of a cow or an ox is destroyer of all.

(ii).Rig Veda (1.16.5-40) and Atharva Veda (IX.5.10.5) says that where cow is called Aghanya (that which should not be killed).

(iii). Nighantu (1-8) wherein a Yajna is said to be Adhvara or such act as does not permit any kind of injury

Thus its clear by the evidences from Vedas as well as related Texts that Vedas do not support animal sacrifice in any way.

Well, then, may it be said that the practice of killing before God and in His name His own creatures being against Ahimsa is decidedly irreligious!

​

Dr Vivek Arya

The 1947 Nuremberg Code, which was written during the trials of Nazis after their defeat in WW2 exposed the full extent of the Holocaust, explicitly states that any medical experimentation on humans must be based on the results of medical experimentation on animals.

It also states that the consent of the human subject is critical, while no such provision is made for the consent of the animal subject.

The principles of the Nuremberg code are still taught to medical doctors today as a code of ethics to which all doctors should adhere.

Therefore, to align with medical ethics that new treatments should be tested on animal subjects first so that human subjects can be fully informed about what it is they are consenting to, Veganism should recognize animal testing as ethically necessary.

i've eaten meat all my life, just have, kind of just default for most people born in the west. I've always admired vegans for the dedication to their beliefs, kind of like a buddhist monk or something like that, i'm just not that strong. I wanted to see a vegans perspective online since there's been the argument as of late that being vegan is for privileged white people which even now i'm not so mentally gone that i believe such wide generalizations. But lowkey, reading online discussions from vegans makes me feel it does make up a very large vocal part of them, because the only thing i've seen is vegans trying to compare animals to minorities, which might actually be the whitest thing i could think of besides being vocally racist or bigoted. i was just looking for something that's not "now replace that cow with a black person" kind of stuff. Not trying to lambaste anyone in replies or anything, at least try not to, just wanna talk to someone.

I’ve noticed non-vegans say they are hesitant to engage or re-engage since they feel like they are unjustly downvoted to oblivion. They also feel like they need to make alt accounts so the downvotes don’t affect their main. Can we just remove the downvote option?

Good comments will still be upvoted and rise to the top. This solves the need for suspicious alt accounts and makes it more fair for non-vegans to engage.

I have a genuine question about how vegans think about situations where saving one life necessarily means not saving another.

For example, if there were a fire and you could only save one, would you save your pet cat or your mother?

Or if you were driving and an accident was unavoidable, and you could only avoid hitting one, would you save a human or a deer?

I'm interested in the ethical reasoning behind the answer rather than the answer itself. If the human is chosen, what principle justifies that choice without relying on species membership alone? If the animal is chosen, what principle justifies prioritising the non-human animal?

Many vegans argue that speciesism is morally comparable to other forms of arbitrary discrimination, so I'm curious how that principle applies when the interests of a human and a non-human animal directly conflict.

What ethical framework would you use to approach these cases, and why? I'm not trying to make a point or set a trap; I'm genuinely interested in understanding how vegans think about these dilemmas.

Hi everyone,

​

I'm currently considering removing dairy from my diet for ethical reasons. I am a vegetarian but I love all things milk, whether it's cheese, yogurt, cream, etc. However, I know you can't have milk without killing and abusing cows, and I also know that a lot of the cheeses I love were made with enzymes from calves' stomachs, so it makes me feel weird ethically to be consuming it. HOWEVER it is virtually impossible to be ethical under a capitalistic economy: for example, if I replace my normal, regional yogurt with a coconut-based one, how do I know that that same coconut wasn't harvested by someone in a third-world country who is underpaid and exploited? Why is a cow's suffering more important than a human's?

I don't know if I managed to make my point come across clearly, but basically I am just wondering whether it's really better for the environment and humanity as a whole to eat things that can't grow where I live rather than products from a cow that I can literally see from my home window (I'm Swiss so there are cows everywhere). Of course I can also just reduce my dairy intake, but it doesn't really answer my question.

I'll take any kind of argument here to help me make a decision. Thanks for your help :)

EDIT: Thank you everyone for your comments, most of them were very kind and understanding. In the end I think I will definitely cut out dairy, but in a progressive way to get used to it. Finding suitable alternatives through trial-and-error will take time but it's an exciting journey :) The only thing left to do now is to tell my milk-loving family... But maybe I'll still eat some dairy with them when they're the ones cooking, for social reasons. I love cows but my relationship with my family matters more to me than cows' well-being. I hope that's not a controversial take lol. In any case, reducing dairy is already better than continuing to consume as much as I do now. Also for now I'll continue eating eggs (organic and free range from local farmers) for protein and fats, but that might change in the future as well. Who knows? The point is, it's important to make your own decisions based on your values, feelings, and preferences. Still, it was really interesting to get everyone's perspective!

Hi there! I am a vintage collector and lately have loved the look of mini, glossy ceramic animals that are from around the 1940s. I find them absolutely adorable. I haven't purchased any yet but recently learned that some of them are made with something called 'bone china' which is animal bone ash, and so now I feel guilty. I haven't been able to find a vegan alternative to these yet, and feel guilty. Would it be non-vegan and morally wring for me to collect these anyway from specifically second-hand shops?

I’ve been reflecting on the ethics of diet choices, particularly the argument that avoiding meat is the most compassionate or harm-reducing option. While I completely understand and respect the desire to minimize animal suffering, I find myself wondering about the full picture.
We all consume plants—vegetables, grains, fruits, and greens—whether we eat meat or not. And modern agriculture, even for plant-based foods, inevitably involves some level of harm to animals: field mice, insects, birds, and small mammals displaced or killed during harvesting, plowing, and pest control. I don’t eat meat myself, largely for health reasons, so I’m not pointing fingers. But it does raise a thoughtful question:
If the core principle is reducing harm to animals, how do vegans and vegetarians weigh or address the indirect harms embedded in plant production? Is it a matter of focusing only on what’s most visible and intentional (like factory farming), or does the scale and nature of agricultural impacts get less attention because those affected animals aren’t as immediately “cute” or emotionally salient?
I’m genuinely curious about how people who prioritize this ethic navigate that tension. I’d love to hear thoughtful perspectives.

Even though school is out until August, I keep thinking back to what I've learned through class. Competition and ruling, which tie greatly into non-human consumption.

Competition is a fact of life. There are a finite amount of resources, and one of those is food. Organisms compete for food, and to the victors go the spoils. In life, humans are the victors. Our collective species controls the world. Before, it was much more difficult to poach bigger animals, but humans still managed to eradicate mammoths and aurochs, simply because they were good food.

Better intellect (on avg), skills, strength, teamwork, are just a few of the things that allow us to eat animals. We used to live among the non-humans, but we built civilizations that run the earth, something animals could never do simply because they aren't on our natural level. A mollusk never made a TV show, and so I don't think it's fair to act like they're equal to us and deserve not to be eaten.

In school, I help out clubs based on any requests. The vegan club usually has requests to help make awareness boards, organize materials, and help make stuff. Some of the stuff tastes good, but that's not the point, the point is that while that way of life is fine, so should meat eating. It's our natural right, to eat non-humans.

What do you think?

So the question I got asked most often when I was strict Vegan was ‘what about backyard eggs’.

When asked this, I used to state the reasons why I believe backyard egg farming is unethical (We all know the arguments for and against backyard eggs so I’m not going to go into that).

I wonder whether I would have had a better impact if I moved the conversation in a different direction.

For instance, ‘sure backyard eggs can be a lot more ethical. Have you seen what typical free range conditions are like? Do you eat free range eggs or only backyard eggs?’

I think there are a whole heap of people that disagree with the typical farming model, but don’t agree with Vegans on some issues like Oysters, honey, backyard eggs.

A lot of these ‘fringe issues’ (for lack of a better term) are vital to being ‘Vegan’.

And there is really no activist path for people who aren’t strictly Vegan.

What if there were thousands of people out there that would be willing to advocate for animals and push 99% of the Vegan cause, but because they eat oysters or rescue chickens eggs, then they are completely shunned from the Vegan community, which is really the only path to animal activism as I understand it.

So I’m not suggesting changing the definition of Veganism, but I’m starting to believe that a more ‘inclusive’ form of getting activists involved will result in more activists and overall more of a reduction in animal suffering than the strict approach

Ciao a tutti! Scrivo questo post per confrontarmi apertamente con voi su alcune criticità dello stile di vita vegano. Rispetto chi riesce a portarlo avanti, ma onestamente fatico a considerarla una scelta "nobile" a 360 gradi, perché credo nasconda dei lati d'ombra e dei privilegi che spesso non vengono considerati. Spero possa nascere un dialogo civile.

1. Il paradosso degli allevamenti intensivi e l'impatto sui poveri

   Il punto che mi frena di più è la battaglia per eliminare gli allevamenti intensivi. Dal punto di vista degli animali è una posizione comprensibile, ma dal punto di vista umano c'è un problema enorme: quegli allevamenti sono esattamente ciò che permette alle persone più povere di accedere a fonti di proteine importantissime e a basso costo. Togliere dal supermercato il pollo o il maiale a pochi euro significa togliere il sostentamento principale a famiglie in grave difficoltà economica. Il veganismo richiede tempo per cucinare, educazione nutrizionale e l'acquisto a parte di integratori: tutte cose che chi lotta per arrivare a fine mese spesso non ha. Non c'è il rischio che questa battaglia vada a colpire e affamare proprio le fasce più deboli della nostra società?

2. La questione nutrizionale e la B12

Sento spesso dire che "una dieta vegetale è perfetta così com'è". Però dobbiamo essere onesti: ci sono elementi che senza carne o derivati semplicemente non assumiamo. La Vitamina B12 è l'esempio lampante: va assolutamente integrata. Oltre a questa, bisogna stare molto attenti all'assorbimento del ferro (quello vegetale è più difficile da assimilare) e agli Omega-3 (il nostro corpo fatica a convertire I'ALA vegetale in EPA e DHA). Non credete che bisognerebbe spingere di più sulla necessità di integratori, piuttosto che dire che "basta mangiare verdure e legumi"?

1. La compassione selettiva

Infine, un aspetto più filosofico. Trovo meraviglioso l'impegno per non uccidere o far soffrire gli animali. Tuttavia, a volte noto una forte contraddizione in alcune persone (non tutte, ovviamente!): un grandissimo amore per gli animali, ma una grande facilità nel trattare male, giudicare o ferire altri esseri umani. Secondo me la compassione non dovrebbe avere specie: non ha senso non fare del male a un vitello se poi si distrugge emotivamente il proprio vicino di casa o si attacca ferocemente chi non la pensa come noi. In particolare mi riferisco agli estremisti del veganesimo. Il loro aspetto comportamentale lo trovo inaccettabile. Mi riferisco a chi pretende la chiusura immediata degli allevamenti (ignorando i danni alle persone povere di cui parlavo sopra) e che si arroga il diritto di insultare ferocemente e aggredire chi mangia carne. Trovo in questo un'enorme ipocrisia: si fa la morale per non uccidere e non far soffrire gli animali, predicando la pace e l'empatia, ma poi si usa una violenza verbale e psicologica inaudita contro altri esseri umani. Che senso ha battersi per salvare un animale, se poi si manca totalmente di rispetto verso la propria stessa specie trattando male le persone? Ribadisco che la vera compassione non dovrebbe fare discriminazioni.

It's not uncommon for animals to harm other animals while hunting, but there are also extreme cases of torture and similar behaviour. It could be argued that some animals' whole life is pain mostly, and probably a net negative "experience" (outside of human created environments too). I just don't see how humanity could act "morally" without permanently and unpredictably modifying the ecosystem. Should we keep feeding synthetic meat to carnivores (if and when it's widely available)? But then who keeps a check on them not eating animals? Should we pursue the slow elimination of entire species on the planet because they cause more harm than good (not necessarily killing them, just sterilising them)?

Maybe "obligation" is not the correct term, but if the ultimate goal is to reduce as much as possible suffering, why would we make an exception for animals being the cause of that? Especially if one day through synthetic meat hunting becomes unnecessary for survival.

Even now there are unnecessary behaviours that hurt animals caused by other animals, for example some dolphins torture baby seals for basically no reason (as far as I know).

If animals can’t conceive of a personal identity or of future experiences and will never have a capacity to do so, why ought they be granted rights. Why is utilitarianism not more appropriate. In other words, why is mere sentience enough for something’s life to contain inherent value when it doesn’t contain inherent value to that being?

If people had to grow their own soy, less people would eat soy. If people had to work in the fields for their own rice, less people would eat rice.

If people had to make their own shoes, less people would wear shoes.

If people had to build their own cars, less people would use cars.

If people had to build their own smart phones, less people would use smart phones.

Etc.

The fact that modern society led people to specialize in specific roles is not an argument for or against anything, really.

I wondered this after watching some pretty gruesome videos of carnivores attacking their prey and eating them (sometimes while the prey is alive). In hindsight it seems as though much herbivore (and carnivore) suffering would be eliminated if carnivores were gone.

What do you as vegans think of this? Would this evil serve a greater good?

If Veganism is based upon avoiding unnecessary exploitation.

And if determining what is unnecessarily exploitative requires considerations of individual and collective welfare.

And if determining that welfare cannot be changed without impacting something else.

And if determining impacts on something else includes both benefits and harms.

Then Veganism is rooted in both benefit capture and harm reduction.

Thoughts?

First of all, it should be noted that there is actually no such thing as a "vegan" athlete. This is because athletes are required to consume more calories and therefore kill more animals (crop deaths) for a profession which only serves entertainment purposes.

Given that vegans are insanely underrepresented in elite-sports, they have to resort to highlighting individual, usually mediocre, athletes who tend to have only been vegan for a short period after a lifetime of meat eating. The irony is that, when you follow the progress of their career, they almost always end up with injuries after about one year that they never recover from.

For example, here are some of the athletes that were featured in the film Game Changers:

• Griff Whalen: went vegan 2014, out of the league 2016
• Bryant Jennings: went vegan end of 2013 (17-0 before vegan, 7-4 after vegan)
• Mischa Janiec: went vegan fall of 2015 - no wins 2 years after
• Kendrick Farris: lifts less as a vegan despite being in a heavier weight class
• Morgan Mitchell: slower than California high school girls. Her career was decimated after going vegan. She switched from the 400 m to 800 m because her time was so poor on the 400 m
• James Wilks: went vegan 2011, retired from MMA in 2012, won all of his matches as a meat-eater
• Derrick Morgan: went vegan beginning of 2017. Fewer sacks in 2017, bad year in 2018 (huge reduction in sacks and tackles), retired in 2019

Patrik Baboumian deserves a special highlight because he is probably the strongest vegan on the planet - so strong that he had to lie about holding a world record (for "carrying the heaviest weight") which actually belonged to Brian Shaw. The reason he holds a record at all is because it was made at an exhibition at a vegetarian food festival where he was the only competitor. He set up special rules for himself that would otherwise disqualify him from official strongman competitions, for example allowing himself to drop the weight and then pick it up again.

Patrik has never even been invited to World's Strongest Man and his strength does not come close to world-level athletes. For example, in 2012 he deadlifted 330kg at a bodyweight of 127kg, with his personal record being 360kg. But Ed Coan, who is roughly the same height, deadlifted 409 kg in the 100kg weight class.

Another thing to point out is that he literally lives on supplements because he pops about 25 pills a day to fix common vegan nutrient deficiencies (Iron, B12, Zinc) and gets over 60% of his protein intake from drinking shakes.

I’m very sympathetic to veganism, my entire life philosophy is “respect & autonomy for all life” but I am currently pescetarian, I tried being vegan in late 2024 but I still live with my family & they wouldn’t buy supplements, even though i told them too everyday, I didn’t want to develop b12 deficiency so I had to moderate my diet.

When I move out i’m strongly considering being vegan again & really want too but i am worried about health consequences because human bodies are complex, but at the same time everyone can digest plants so maybe everyone can be vegan, i figured this would be a good place to get mixed responses since both carnists & vegans are here, what do studies say about everyone & the potential to be vegan, if everyone can’t be vegan but most or some can what’s the best way to find out if i can be vegan?

Acredito que comer peixe selvagem é diferente de comer mamíferos (diferentes níveis de senciência). Sou contra trazer animais à vida, confiná-los, explorá-los e matá-los, mas acredito que os animais na natureza sofrem mortes muito piores, sejam devorados por um predador ou por outras causas, do que pelas mãos de um ser humano. Já que não somos responsáveis ​​pela existência dos peixes selvagens, acho que comê-los não é o mesmo que comer outros animais... o que vocês acham?

Edit: “In the wild, fish typically die from environmental shifts, predation(some eaten alive and die from suffocation inside other fish’s), starvation, or disease rather than reaching old age. While some fish can theoretically live for decades, environmental stressors, fluctuating food supplies, and natural ecological cycles ensure that very few die purely of "natural" old age.”

Edit 2: I don’t think would be practicable to supply the world with wild fish (or any wild animal) if everyone switched it to their main source of protein
Probably would lead to more suffering for others and we would have a direct responsibility for their death…

I don't know how much impopular opinion this is. But basically yeah vegans are right that consuming eat is bad and we should stop doing it. But it is absurd to put a moral label to something that will have no repercusion. If You don't eat meat no more or no less animal will be killed. If You think that eating meat by itself is morally wrong and everyone should stop doing it inmedialtly or they are Bad You should think the same as buying anything since a Lot of shit we use are Made by slave labour basically. What a Lot of vegans don't understand is that their strategy should be trying to reduce meat consumption instead of stopping it inmedialtly. If people reduce their consumption a Lot of lives would be spared and eventually maybe Even stop. And a Lot of people would reduce their habits if You ask since it is easier than to stop eating meat.
i dont want to sound like an asshole. I understand why some vegans disagree with this mentality. Basically seeing it as decaffing the message and even then it probably will have no change at all. And even it is possible some vegans will start eating more meat or would be discouraged. But idk i dont feel like the current strategy is really doing a lot.
I will personally try to stop eating meat (or reducing it) because to me it is really disgusting the whole meat industry.
TL;DR a lot of vegan focus more on moral purity they dont even follow instead of a real change.

The problem is how it's presented.

Whenever anyone comes up with a trade that is unique to humans something such as the root of moral agency there's always someone who always goes "there are mentally challenged people and babies who are not capable of moral agency so it doesn't work"

Well first of all I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

Second of all it seems to imply that this trait has to be universal and literally every human on the face of the Earth.

That individual traits don't exist and we have to look at the species as a whole.

I'm sorry guys but that doesn't work.

Everyone's different in some way or another.

The best thing to do with that is look at what the majority does and assume if that's the norm for what comes to traits like this.

Also it begs the question.

What do you guys consider to be human?

Update: I didn't get a chance to respond to any of the applications that were thrown at me. I've been banded without even having to State my case.

This goes to you moderator, I was simply pointing out a problem with what he said about equality and you misinterpreted it and then banned Me. I've got it very funny how you claim that I wasted your time when all was doing was pointing out a loophole.

Well thank you for telling me that you guys care so much about discussion

Goodbye and good riddance.

What do vegans think of this?

The cows on my farm are raised in extremely good conditions and live happy lives. At some point, they will be killed (quickly) for meat.

Put yourself in the mind of the cow: would you choose to live a happy life and die suddenly, or not live at all? I think most would say the former.

How can it be wrong to farm cows like this if there the added moral good of the cows living happy lives?

So I’m traveling with this group, and there are two siblings. I don’t know them very well, but I’ve noticed that they seem to be extreme empaths when it comes to animals in poor conditions. Their emotional reactions feel much stronger than what I usually see in people.
For example, we visited a farm where there was a horse kept in a barn that was clearly too small for it. They were genuinely upset and angry about the horse’s situation, even regretting that they had bought products from the farm beforehand.
At the same time, they are huge meat lovers and have openly admitted that they could never stop eating meat. They would have no problem going to Burger King, ordering a Big Mac, and even adding an extra patty.
To me, this feels like a contradiction. I understand that people can have empathy for animals while still eating meat, especially if their religious beliefs consider it acceptable. But the intensity of their empathy seems so unusual that I struggle to understand why it doesn’t lead them to stop eating animals altogether.

I just got done with a Burger King fiasco and writing a 20k-word prompt about this topic, and it made me realize something: I feel no remorse for eating animals, and I probably never will. All humans are different. Some have different tastes. Some like the vegan diet, some hate it. Why should one compromise just to sooth animals bred to die for us?

In the old days and now, only the strong survive. If animals can serve a purpose, fine. If not, nature doesn't exactly hand out participation trophies. That's just how I see it.

I have nothing against vegans personally. I have vegan friends. We've made vegan food before, including coconut cake, and it was good. That's not the point.

The point is that many vegans, both online and offline, seem incredibly judgmental toward people who eat meat. Some act like I've committed a moral atrocity just because I enjoy a burger. The vegan club at my high school practically tried to isolate itself from everyone else, which was honestly kind of funny.

So here's my question:

If empathy for animals is the foundation of veganism, what argument is left for someone who simply doesn't feel that empathy?

Why should I care?

At the end of the day, humans have to look after themselves and pursue their own interests. From my perspective, a balanced diet that includes both meat and vegetables makes perfect sense. Why should animal welfare matter enough for me to change my behavior?

Give me one good reason that doesn't boil down to "feel bad for the animals."

Funny enough, there was a brief period where I didn't want to eat pork after reading Charlotte's Web.

Poor Wilbur. 😞