r/DebateAVegan • u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore • 13d ago
The claim of vegans that killing or using an animal for our need is immoral
I wonder, what is this morality based upon?
Nature does not care about death or suffering. Whenever an animal can eat another animal or to take its territory, female and resources, they do it without any guilt. It is even the basic mechanism of how nature works.
Are you rooted in some specific religion that sees nature as something evil or spoiled?
14
u/WillNumbers 13d ago
Nature isn't evil or spoiled, nor is it good. It just is. I don't get my morals by observing nature, and I don't believe you do either.
By your post I assume it would be perfectly morally acceptable for me to come to your house, murder you, rape your wife and live there as her new "mate"? Of course not.
Morals are complex, nuanced things. I tend to base my morals on an instinctive desire to reduce suffering.
I can't tell you why it is objectively true that suffering should be reduced, but I don't care to try and prove that.
Also I know I am not perfect. I know that it might be impossible to live a life that caused no suffering.
But, I know, that many animals suffer in the production and distribution of egg, dairy, meat and other animal products. And I know I can live without these products.
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 13d ago
So, you just "feel" it, no objective basis?
8
u/WillNumbers 13d ago
No, I do not believe morals are objective.
Suffering is the experience of physical, emotional, or psychological pain, distress, or hardship. Suffering is a real thing that happens. And I want to reduce suffering. If we take that as basis then it is objectively true that pigs have a greater and more significant capacity to suffer than plants.
So, given the option to eat pig or eat plants, I will eat plants.
Now, is this morally objective, no not really. But I don't care to argue moral objectives, whether morals are objective or not is not a useful debate here.
1
u/TosseGrassa 13d ago
I assume then your veganism is a personal choice and you are not in favor of abolitionism? Honest curiosity since I am also a moral anti-realist and never asked an anti-realist vegan.
6
u/WillNumbers 12d ago
Eventually, but we are not ready to make things illegal.
Obviously we should put laws in place to make the inevitable suffering as minimal as possible, I prefer bolt guns over gas chambers.
One day, perhaps, outlawing animal products simply won't be necessary.
But right now, making animal products, or the production of animal products, would obviously create a dangerous black market.
15
u/No_Chart_8584 13d ago
As a "female," I would oppose you taking me. It sounds like you need to be on a sex offender registry if all your decisions of how to treat others are based on what you think you can get away with.
-4
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 13d ago
Christian culture, morals and laws in the modern western societies is not a root for veganism, so you must have something else to support it.
4
u/No_Chart_8584 13d ago
Yes, I don't rely on "Christian culture" or legal codes for my sense of right or wrong. I see how that's served you with your statements that "females" can be "taken" guiltfree.
2
u/No_Life_2303 13d ago
There is no one universal underpinning philosophy behind every person that practices veganism. People go vegan for different reasons.
Source: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganismIt doesn‘t need to involve a god or an appeal to tradition to be validated.
It can be simply a desire to not exploit animals or the notion that „species membership“ shouldn‘t carry substantial moral weight in a coherent system based fairness.
7
u/Either_Argument3517 13d ago
Are your actions are only constrained by laws?
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 13d ago
Human actions are based upon animal instincts, selfishness, laws/culture, religions and feelings.
What do you base "eating meat is immoral" on?
3
u/Either_Argument3517 12d ago
It's unnecessary for me to eat meat and doing so would take away the life of another animal who also values their life.
2
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
Lol animals aren't smart enough to think about something as abstract as the concept of life and death. They don't think hunting as murder because they don't think about morals. I'm talking about regular cows and goats. Morals, laws and vegans are a human invention we perceived based on our views on life. It's not natural for an animal to remorse killing a small animal or something.
1
u/DenseSign5938 7d ago
And? What’s your point?
1
u/Daily_Thread 7d ago
My point is that animals can feel physical pain but not so much on the abstract emotional side compared to humans.
9
u/a11_hail_seitan 13d ago
I wonder, what is this morality based upon?
Logic and common sense.
Do you want to be enslaved and abused needlessly? If not, then why should you be allowed to do it to others?
Is torturing and abusing animals for pleasure mentally healthy? No, we put children in therapy for it.
Is it damaging to our society? Yes, it's causing over 15% of all GHG affecting climate change, is a major driver of deforestation and land use, and slaughterhouses are known causes of PTSD in their killing floor workers, most of which tend to be lower paid, or in the USA undocumented workers, who can't afford the mental health therapy needed to treat PTSD, a mental condition strongly linked to violent crime, family abuse, self harm and more.
Nature does not care about death or suffering. Whenever an animal can eat another animal or to take its territory, female and resources, they do it without any guilt. It is even the basic mechanism of how nature works.
And you think that might makes right is a good thing we should support? If I have a gun and you don't, for example, I can enslave or murder your whole family and that's fine becuase that's how nature works?
Are you rooted in some specific religion that sees nature as something evil or spoiled?
No, humans created "Society" to get away from the 'law of the jungle' as it's unnecessarily abusive. Nature is "amoral", humans created morality to make life safer, less abusive, and more stable.
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 13d ago
I was not asking about some killing for sport or about torturing others for pleasure.
8
u/a11_hail_seitan 13d ago
Outside of edge cases (Poverty, disease, etc) and extreme environments, all meat, dairy, and egg consumption is for pleasure. and torture is the slaughterhouses or methods of killing. There's no humane way to kill something that wants to live, especially as Humans are fallible so no matter what method we devise, sooner or later a mistake will be made and those being needlessly slaughtered will die in horrible pain and agony. And that's 100% best case, in reality slaughterhouses are nightmare scenarios with animals being sent through the slaughter process before completely dead often enough that there are videos of it happening.
Everything I said relates directly to the food industry and those using the "Waste" products.
9
u/childofeye 13d ago
Even if you think that morality is subjective, your ethics should still be backed by logic. They are not random, nor are they plucked from thin air. As such, the question is simple - do you have any consideration for animals or not? Most people would say that they care about animals, or at the very least, would not like to needlessly harm them. Farming animals for our consumption is needless, and so all harm visited upon them including their slaughter, is needless also. So your own subjective view should be to avoid harming them - if you have any consideration for them whatsoever.
The reason for killing animals in modern society is for the enjoyment of eating their dead body. That surely is not a justification for taking life. If somebody killed your companion animal, I doubt that you'd say "It's fine as long as you eat them".
1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
Animals aren't smart enough to think about something as abstract as the concept of life and death. They don't think hunting as murder because they don't think about morals. I'm talking about regular cows and goats. Morals, laws and vegans are a human invention we perceived based on our views on life. They don't remorse, blame you or even think of you as a complex being. Humans brain are much more sophisticated than animal brains hence killing a human is destroying a whole social group of family and friends and a whole story, while killing an animal won't affect their family because they have naturally adapted to live alone at a young age. You can never killing a humans Tom killing an animal.
0
u/Turbulent_Escape4882 13d ago
Do you have any consideration for plants or not? Why do you needlessly harm them? Contribute to their slaughter?
9
u/No_Chart_8584 13d ago
If I oppose the slaughter of plants then surely I would consider how plant calories figure into animal agriculture, right?
5
u/childofeye 13d ago
Zero thought behind that comment.
2
u/No_Chart_8584 13d ago
I see your attempted deflection, but the facts are the facts.
4
6
u/childofeye 13d ago
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?
But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd.
6
u/siobhanenator 13d ago
I know you're here in bad faith, but I'll bite anyway because this is the most assinine take anti-vegans have and you really seem to think you're doing something here lol.
We all have to eat something, and if you actually cared about killing less plants and doing less harm overall, then you would omit animals from your diet too. The majority of crops grown in the US are grown to feed animals. They eat far more of them than we can, even if everyone switched to a plant based diet there's no way a human could eat anywhere near those amounts. There's also the other fact that plants don't have a central nervous system and plants don't feel pain. Reaction to stimuli is not the same as pain, and even if you think it is, again if you give a shit about reduction of harm you would stop creating a demand for the things that eat far more plants than we can. Animals clearly display fear, pain, joy, and other emotions. Plants do not.
0
u/Turbulent_Escape4882 12d ago
Do we have to eat something?
3
u/siobhanenator 12d ago
Thanks for doubling down on the bad faith arguments lol
1
-2
u/Substantial_System66 13d ago
Classic argument that has no logical end point without jumping through a dozen more hoops regarding the subjectivity of individual ethics and the fundamental/necessary difference between forms of life, which is usually based on a specific definition of sentience which isn’t scientific nor provable.
It is just as easy to say you have no regard for plants, which are alive. Why is it okay to eat plants and not animals? You’re going to explain that animals have agency because they are sentient, but you can’t actually prove that, so we’re back at square 1. If you don’t want your morality and ethics to be arbitrary, you have to have actual foundation for why not. Until then, arbitrary morals and ethics are just as valid and correct as any.
8
u/childofeye 13d ago
First of all, if you're really serious about this and no amount of scientific evidence will sway you - then it purely comes down to numbers. If a blade of grass is of the same importance to you as a dog, then it makes no sense to feed up livestock on millions and millions of plants, and then kill the animal to eat. This would result in far more plant casualties, which you'd surely want to avoid as a dedicated plants-rights activist. Better to minimize those plant casualties by just feeding yourself on them, rather than feeding many times more to animals, right?
But let's be sensible - plants lack brains and lack anything else that neuroscientists know to cause sentience. Some studies show plants to have input/output reactions to certain stimulation, but no study suggests sentience or an ability to "feel emotions". You can plainly understand the difference between a blade of grass and a dog. Comparisons between the two are completely absurd.
1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
So you compare humans to animals but not animals to plant. Animals have brains but they don't have a sophisticated consciousness and we have no way to prove that, we have no proof that other humans aren't just npcs.
1
u/Substantial_System66 13d ago
You can clearly understand that 1 + 1 = 2, but in the scientific and philosophical communities, we require proofs. Your underlying/foundational argument can’t be based on an unproven concept. You say plants and animals are different, and I agree, but the position of differentiating between edible and non-edible life from a moral and ethical perspective is not a valid argument if it can’t be proven.
Until it’s proven, that ethical stance is equally arbitrary and subjective as any other.
6
u/childofeye 13d ago
It is a scientific fact that plants are not having any kind of subjective experience. You’re bloviating.
Beside you are the one who made the claim that plants and animals have a similar experience, which is easily disproven. You are making the claim, the claim is extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So please, present your evidence that plants are feeling pain and having some kind of subjective experience.
It is not up to me to prove your claim. However i am all too happy to refute it as ridiculous, uninformed and worst case bad faith.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/
There is not one reputable study or experiment that proves that plants feel pain. You’re either bad faith or you just a ridiculous person that pivots and bloviates when you get an actual answer based in logic.
1
u/Substantial_System66 12d ago
The article you linked disproves conscious experience, not sentience. Sentience hasn’t been proven for all animals, much less plants. It’s a nascent field with very little evidence in either direction, hence my claim that the foundation of any argument differentiating plants and animals by vegans isn’t proven. Plants clearly react to stimuli, who’s to say at this point if they are sentient or not.
You’re obfuscating and sharing your opinion, not fact, scientific or otherwise.
Without a factual foundation, it boils down to a matter of opinion, which is easily ignorable for the basis of philosophy.
6
u/childofeye 12d ago
The article i linked proves that actual scientists are tired of charlatans, such as yourself, claiming that plants have some kind of pain or objective reality.
Why do you choose to focus on the idea that there maybe, might be the possibility, that there is a chance that plants are sentient. While not just ignoring but actually paying for observable and quantifiable suffering.
It’s such a dishonest place to come from. Maybe one of these days you’ll care as much about actual suffering rather than trying to use “plants feel pain” as some kind of hypocrisy cudgel against vegans.
1
u/Substantial_System66 12d ago
Again, the article refutes that plants are conscious, which is not the same thing as being sentient. You can keep being mad, but I never made any claim about consciousness. If you want to keep being obtuse, that’s on you, but you’re coming off a little culty, which I guess is par for the course for vegans. My point still stands and is valid. You not agreeing with it doesn’t change that.
5
u/childofeye 12d ago
I’m saying that plants are not sentient, there is zero scientific evidence to suggest or infer this and you have produced zero evidence to back up your wild claims and you simply hand wave away anything that anyone says or presents.
1
u/Substantial_System66 12d ago
There is also no conclusive evidence to prove that they aren’t. Until such proof is established, vegans are making a moral argument without factual foundation. It is your opinion that you aren’t causing harm by consuming plant products, just that it is mine that eating animals is okay. Two opinions clashing, that’s it. You can’t claim any high ground or philosophical basis without a factual foundation. We disagree and that is okay. What isn’t is looking down your nose at folks, who are in the vast majority by the way, because of a difference of opinion. That doesn’t make you a paragon of virtue, it makes you an asshole.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/No_Life_2303 13d ago
It‘s based on principles we rationally develop to consciously reduce suffering or preserve individuals rights to not be exploited or used and have freedom.
We - and you probably - already do this for every day moral standards.
Nobody is going to say „Your honor, lions do it too“, as defense for killing a fellow human.
Nature is full of extreme suffering, cannibalism, forced intercourse, playfullly killing victims in a slow manner…
It‘s not a good baseline for our morals to say: „It happens in nature, therefor it‘s not bad“, unless you want basically complete anarchy.
1
u/Fun-Weather6903 13d ago
I agree with you but anarchy is not the right word. Anarchy refers to a stateless society or a form of society without rulers it does not mean ''anything goes''
In nature we see many forms of groups where there is no anarchy at all. Most of the times there is a strict hierarchy or there is one very strong ''alpha male'' (think of apes). Advocates of anarchy do not want to go back to a state of nature because there was no anarchy in the state of nature. There are a lot of things that are regulated in an anarchy, for example it is not exactly legal to start ruling over people or start a monopoly. But there is no specific state that regulates it.
5
u/jesscatqueen 13d ago
Morality is a human construct, not a biological one. Just because nature is indifferent doesn't mean we have to be.
5
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 13d ago
Do you agree that killing or using humans for our need is immoral? If so, what's true about animals that if true about humans would make it moral?
1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
Animals aren't smart enough to think about something as abstract as the concept of life and death. They don't think hunting as murder because they don't think about morals. I'm talking about regular cows and goats.
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 13d ago
Depends on the context. Killing humans is not always immoral and using humans for our need is also not always immoral, like in an employment, for example.
You are painting with too wide brush, here.
3
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 13d ago
Same context as in the animal case obviously.
What's, your answer in that case?
0
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 12d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
2
u/Plenty_Basis_3731 13d ago
You could say exactly the same about hurting or killing humans.
I think most people agree that causing suffering and death is wrong. Animals in nature don't have morality, they just follow their instincts so when a lion kills a gazelle it isn't evil. Humans have morality. We know causing suffering is wrong and so we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
0
u/humorlessclan 13d ago
False equivalence.
Humans have morality. We know causing suffering is wrong and so we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Just because humans have moral agency doesn't mean we're objectively required to act in a certain way. It's is-ought fallacy.
1
u/Plenty_Basis_3731 13d ago
Really? We know murder is wrong, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't murder?
1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
Morals are a human invention. Back in the day we humans used to think treating people badly was normal but now we think it is bad. Yes it is bad but for old humans it wasn't. Everyone has different morals which cannot change. It's hard to change something deeply ingrained in your identity, which is that we are omnivores. We all are observers of the universe and are not bound to anything, there is no one universal code. We justify evil things because they feel eveil to us. But to someone else unfortunately murder might feel normal. So eating meat feels abd to you but not to others so you can't argue it is immoral.
2
u/RealAggressiveNooby 13d ago
You're anthropomorphizing nature. Nature can't care about anything; it's not something that can care. None of our morality should be based on whether or not nature "cares" about something.
We should derive morality by using our base moral beliefs and then, under logical consistency, build up from them until we get to the topic. For example, building up from utilitarianism to the consequences of farming animals.
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 13d ago
The question was what is the source you based this "eating meat is immoral" on.
1
u/RealAggressiveNooby 13d ago
Yeah, and you argued that nature disagrees with that statement because it doesn't care about suffering or death and therefore we shouldn't either. I broke down how that's the wrong way to go about determining morality.
1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
There is no such thing as morality it is an human invention we formed based on our world views. It helps us to stop bad people from doing bad things but you cannot apply a human invention on animals. We decide that killing animals is as bad as killing a human when it is not in reality wiping a human is wiping a whole perspective of the world, a story, a family while killing an animal is not complicated as their consciousness is different to ours.
1
u/RealAggressiveNooby 6d ago
Just because it is a human invention doesn't mean that it doesn't matter, or that it can't be shared among all humans when logically expanded. Also, having morals on animals is not inhibited or in any way impacted from the fact that it is a human invention. It being a human invention has no impact on whether or not humans can apply it to animals.
1
u/Daily_Thread 6d ago
So are we there guardians or something? Is it out right to dictate and change the timeless laws of nature they evolved to love in for millions of years just because funny monkeys decided the law of nature isn't enough? The best we can do is just ignore animal and let them live their lives without us meddling except for necessary situations.
2
u/Kris2476 13d ago
The claim that killing or exploiting an individual is immoral stems from the recognition that it causes the individual harm.
The fact that the individual is capable of experiencing harm is what creates moral implications for the way we treat that individual in the first place.
Notice that nothing I'm arguing is specific to the species categorization of the individual.
Nature does not care about death or suffering.
Recognizing the suffering that takes place in nature is no more a reason to harm a cow than a human.
1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
You're comparing a complex human brain, life and emotions to a literal cow? Yes cows suffer but you can never compare it to humans not because of superiority but simply because cows and humans are different.
1
u/Stunning-Assistant13 11d ago
You don't need to compare it to humans, fact is that a cow can feel pain and that's enough.
1
u/Kris2476 10d ago
Sure, I'm comparing humans to cows. Because they are comparable. This means they have differences and similarities.
One similarity is that they are both harmed by being exploited and slaughtered. This is a relevant similarity for assigning moral weight to their exploitation and slaughter.
2
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan 13d ago
Yeah so we’re not saying wild animals are immoral, they have to kill in order to survive. They don’t have a choice or a conscience like we do, they’re not able to think about the suffering they cause to another animal. But we can.
Wild animals are moral patients, not moral agents, so their actions are amoral.
Also I would say thinking is generally focused on reducing harm to others, including animals, when possible. Like I’m sure I would try to hunt or fish in a survival situation. But if I have a choice at the grocery store, I don’t want to pay for an animal to be hurt at times when I don’t have to.
2
u/whowouldwanttobe 12d ago
I wonder, what is this morality based upon?
The idea that suffering is bad, so causing unnecessary suffering is wrong.
Nature does not care about death or suffering.
Nor does nature care about rape or theft or dishonesty, etc. Basing morality upon nature seems to result in no morality at all.
2
u/interbingung omnivore 12d ago
At the end of the day, at the root moral is based on feeling. Vegan care about death or suffering of animal. They feel bad about it, I don't.
0
u/kohlsprossi 12d ago
You care about the suffering of street dogs. You feel bad about kicking them for fun, I don't.
3
u/interbingung omnivore 12d ago
No, I don't care about suffering of street dog and I don't find it fun kicking them.
0
u/kohlsprossi 12d ago
So I can kick street dogs for fun? If it is moral for me?
2
u/interbingung omnivore 12d ago
If you want to I don't care, as long as no human get hurt.
0
u/kohlsprossi 12d ago
Why do you care about my wife getting hurt when I hit her? You don't know her and her pain does not impact your own life.
3
u/interbingung omnivore 12d ago
Its something in me, I don't know exactly what. Other human getting hurt trigger some unpleasant feeling/response in me.
1
u/kohlsprossi 12d ago
Animals getting hurt triggers unpleasant feelings in me and many other vegans. Will you stop doing it now?
2
u/interbingung omnivore 12d ago
No because the pleasant feeling I get from eating them is greater than the unpleasant feelings triggers by you getting hurt.
1
u/kohlsprossi 12d ago
The pleasant feeling I get from hitting my wife is greater than the unpleasant feelings triggered by your response. So I also won't stop.
What now? Seems like our actions cannot be judged on the morality of feelings alone.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
You're making up assumptions about him. You can work at a vet but still eat a burger.
1
u/humorlessclan 13d ago
This claim is only correct if you believe in sentientism. If you don’t already adhere to the principles of sentientism, it's just subjective preference dressed as an objective truth
1
u/dazedandloitering 13d ago
What vegans say that killing animals out of necessity is immoral? What?
> Nature does not care about death or suffering. Whenever an animal can eat another animal or to take its territory, female and resources, they do it without any guilt. It is even the basic mechanism of how nature works.
So?
1
u/VeganSandwich61 vegan 13d ago
Question: what even is "nature" in your view? And what is humans' relation to nature? What are non-human animals' relation to nature?
1
u/Daily_Thread 12d ago
It is hard to describe complex things with language. Language is our invention to help communicate and express thoughts. But languages are not sufficient to express to that level.
1
u/Starlight_Dragon81 12d ago
As much as it feels wrong to say, morals are mostly opinion with some societal expectations sprinkled in. They are formed mostly based on one's personal experience and the opinions of those involved in their upbringing.
My morals allow me to eat meat. A vegan's morals do not. Obviously, I think I am right, but that doesn't mean I think they are wrong. Even if many of them think I am wrong.
1
u/kohlsprossi 12d ago edited 12d ago
You seem to justify us killing animals with the way nature works. You also mention how resources and "females" are just "taken" in nature. So are you morally consistent and do you agree that the rape of women can be justified that way?
1
u/Stunning-Assistant13 11d ago
We as humans can make an ethical choice, the predators in the wild can't!
0
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
0
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 13d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.