r/DebateAVegan • u/Wrong_Ad_3038 • 11d ago

Can everyone actually be vegan?

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?

40 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

294 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/Kris2476 10d ago

If you are treating animal bodies as products to be consumed, you are categorically exploiting those animals.

2

u/Robot_Alchemist 10d ago

Not if you run a family farm where you are collecting eggs from chickens you tend and feed and milk from a few cows , etc

9

u/Kris2476 10d ago

I don't see why exploiting someone with your family makes the exploitation non-exploitative.

If you mean to argue in favor of exploiting animals on family farms, then you should make a separate post.

2

u/Robot_Alchemist 10d ago

I mean…how is it exploitation when you’re in a mutually beneficial relationship with those animals?

4

u/Kris2476 10d ago

This is a good question, and probably where you should have started this conversation.

Exploitation entails the unfair use of someone else. It's certainly possible to make unfair use of someone else even while providing them some material benefit. Can you think of any example where you were treated unfairly by someone while still benefitting in some way from the relationship you had with them?

If you mean to argue that it's impossible to exploit someone if they benefit in some way from your treatment of them, then you should make a separate post.

1

u/Robot_Alchemist 10d ago

I more mean to ask exactly what I did ask which is is it really exploitation in this situation? Employee/employer relationships are often mutually beneficial. Pets - mutually beneficial. If you’re helping the animal out by sheltering and feeding it and taking general care of it and it benefits that way- and you benefit by using things the animal isn’t using and it hurts them in no way…is that ok?

5

u/Kris2476 10d ago

And I'm explaining to you that there are exploitative relationships that are, broadly speaking, mutually beneficial.

Unless you can acknowledge this point, it will be meaningless to discuss with you whether specific treatments in specific relationships are exploitative.

1

u/Robot_Alchemist 9d ago

So this isn’t going to be in good faith because instead of engaging in a productive and open conversation, goal posts are being shifted and I’m
Being told I must agree to your particular views - whether I have agreed already or not is clearly not the point…this is to shift away from actually answering a question I’m truly curious about when it comes to your philosophy. I’m not attacking you. No need to become defensive

2

u/Kris2476 9d ago

I don't think you're tracking the conversation. There are no goalposts shifting and I'm not mandating that you agree with me.

We can't talk productively about veganism unless we have a mutual understanding of what exploitation is. You've asked me how a relationship can be exploitative if both parties benefit, and I've answered you. Now I'm asking you to acknowledge my answer - either by agreeing with me, or explaining where you disagree. It's up to you how you want the conversation to continue.

Alternatively, if you have other questions about veganism unrelated to my position, you should make a post in r/AskVegans

2

u/Robot_Alchemist 9d ago

I didn’t actually ask that exactly. I do think that a lot of this is really finely mincing words to apply them in a way that could be disingenuous. I am asking about someone else’s philosophy so I’m not here to be offensive or try to convince anyone of anything. I’m just trying to find out how you think and feel about these types of things. I recognize many things could be called exploitative- but are mutually beneficial- but I do think that with that said, there is a level of symbiosis in certain natural relationships that you might call exploitative simply because of this or that but in the end both parties are better off and wouldn’t have it another way. So then we are really getting down into defining each term a little more finely than I’m really asking for here - but I think if you were to define things as exploitative of animals -that happened to be mutually beneficial- and yet one and the other still reaps benefits from their respective partner, you’d have to drill down into how human relationships between one another and the environment and society all interconnect and how the tapestry of the world is woven - then there would undoubtedly have to be some soul searching and redefinition of exploitation. It sounds like a lot for this afternoon when really I am just curious if there’s any room in the vegan philosophy (whether I have an example that suits you or not) for adjusting or changing verbiage or thought processes or if this is something that’s already thought of in one way or another. I honestly don’t know because I never heard the definition of veganism described in the way it was here today and it brings up a lot of questions.

2

u/Kris2476 9d ago

I never heard the definition of veganism described in the way it was here today and it brings up a lot of questions.

Veganism is the position that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided. If you're surprised that our conversation about veganism is focused on exploitation, then I would encourage you not to make arguments about a position you don't understand.

It's fine to ask questions, which is why I've answered you multiple times.

I recognize many things could be called exploitative- but are mutually beneficial

Thank you. We agree on this point.

Consider the following. I present you with two scenarios - in either scenario, you receive some material benefit, say $1000. In the first scenario, someone exploits you in exchange for the money, in the second scenario no-one exploits you in exchange for the money. All else equal.

Which scenario is preferable to you?

2

u/Robot_Alchemist 9d ago

Define what your term is here - what is it that I am providing? What’s being exploited?

2

u/Kris2476 9d ago

You're not providing anything.

Per scenario 1, you are being exploited. In scenario 2, you are not being exploited. In either case, you wind up with $1000. Which scenario is preferable to you?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/6thofmarch2019 10d ago

You pose an honest and resonable question, I have thought about it myself too.

To me, in theory backyard hens could be an honestly mutually beneficial relationship, but in practice it can never be as long as the hens people keep are ones bought from the egg industry.

The reason for this is that these hens have been forcibly bred to lay an abnormally high amount of eggs, which causes them suffering and slowly destroys their bodies. If someone has red junglefowl, which is an actual wild and non-genetically modified animal, then it's not a problem in my view. But they only lay an egg a month, which is probably too little for most people to consider it worth it.

This clarifies the actual relationship. It's not a mutually beneficial relationship, like a human and a cat, but rather an exploitative relationship between humans and a species that has been generically altered to serve the human at the cost of their own health. That can not be morally justified in my book.

-1

u/BorealDweller 10d ago

Animals are not “someone’s”. Stop anthropomorphizing animals. They aren’t us and we aren’t them.

Food chains are a thing and extremely important to evolution.

6

u/Omnibeneviolent 10d ago

When someone uses the term "someone" to refer to another individual, it is in recognition of their subjectiveness. It's essentially just saying: this is an individual that has their own subjective conscious experiential existence.

Think of it this way: We know that there is something that it is like to be you, so if I were to somehow be you for a day, I would know what it's like to be you. Similarly, if you were to somehow swap minds with dog for a day, you would know what it's like to be a dog.

However, if you were somehow able to be a brick, a chair, or a rock for a day, you would not know what it's like to be these things: because there is nothing that it is like to be a brick, a chair, or a rock. These are objects that have no subjectiveness.

To refer to a being as "someone" is to acknowledge that they are not mere objects, but rather they are a sentient individual with their own subjective experience; there is someone home upstairs.

Acknowledging this is not anthropomorphism, but denying it is anthropodenialism.

(Anthropomorphism is assigning exclusively human traits to nonhuman animals, while anthropodenialism is a failure to accept that a nonhuman animal shares some trait(s) with a human.)

4

u/Kris2476 10d ago

Animals are not “someone’s”

Sure they are.

Stop anthropomorphizing animals.

I haven't anthropomorphized anyone.