veggies yum
By this logic, is it OK to consume of there is no exploitation or suffering?
What if there’s exploitation but no suffering?
Or suffering but no exploitation, are wild animals privileged?
More of a philosophical question than anything else.
Kinda feels like there’s more to it than exploitation and suffering ya know? Almost like there’s some sort of moral imperative that needs to value life.
Veganism is about exploitation, not suffering. The standard definition of veganism (from the Vegan Society) 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.”
Suffering is incredibly hard to measure or compare. One person’s suffering metric can lead to wildly different conclusions, including eugenics, forced sterilization, suicide and a bunch of ecofascist nonsense. Most vegans reject this, but the fact that they’re utilitarian conclusions that can be drawn from a reduction of suffering shows how slippery suffering-focused ethics can become. You can’t directly control how another being experiences suffering. That makes suffering a shaky foundation for universal moral rules.
Exploitation, by contrast, is something you can control. You are the one doing the exploiting such as using an animal for food, clothing, entertainment, or labor. You can choose to stop. You don’t need to measure the inner experience of a cow or a chicken. You just need to ask: Am I treating this being as a resource? If yes, and you don’t have to, then stop. That is both actionable and measurable
Fwiw I love that you gave me an actual response. And I really like this. The one point in my post I thought was strongest is the wild animal case - there is probably suffering from the victim, but there’s no exploitation, a wild animal doesn’t have any concept of that and therefore cannot be exploiting (there might be an exception but I don’t think we need to go there)
You gave a clean answer without even crossing over into what is “morally” correct which gives such a strong foundation for veganism philosophically speaking.
The one point in my post I thought was strongest is the wild animal case - there is probably suffering from the victim, but there’s no exploitation, a wild animal doesn’t have any concept of that and therefore cannot be exploiting (there might be an exception but I don’t think we need to go there)
I was going to respond to this, but I’m not sure you understood this part of the the comment you replied to:
Exploitation, by contrast, is something you can control. You are the one doing the exploiting such as using an animal for food, clothing, entertainment, or labor. You can choose to stop. You don’t need to measure the inner experience of a cow or a chicken. You just need to ask: Am I treating this being as a resource? If yes, and you don’t have to, then stop. That is both actionable and measurable
Exploitation is independent of what the exploited experience.
Well put. “Protecting animals from suffering” is often a cover for exploitation. It’s fine to have slaves for the purpose of companionship and emotional surrogacy, because I give them a good life where they don’t have to worry about where their next meal or den comes from. But any of us often choose to suffer, for many reasons. Protecting someone from suffering often looks like denying someone autonomy, to suffer for their values, for their future, for their children; we LIKE to suffer, when it’s our choice, within our capacity, and the outcome is something we desire. We cannot really understand the mind of another and making such decisions for them is not compassion or empathy, it is hubris and self-delusion. But we can evaluate our own actions on the basis of exploitation.
Anti speciesism is the guiding principle.
Eta: this is a circlejerk com but I do think it’s a good question for vegans to ask themselves. It is speciesm to decide if an animal is suffering or not when we kill them it eat.
“That logic” didn’t talk about what is okay and what isn’t okay. It talks about what is privilege.
Veganism doesn’t talk about what is okay, either. It talks about what is vegan. Causing suffering is not necessarily not vegan. A vegan can defend themselves. A vegan can even defend their crops. What is not vegan is exploitation in the broadest sense: getting a benefit from the use of something.
You are expected to value life even if you are not vegan. Though, non-vegans have a funny way of showing it.
Yeah but fuck Krasinski
Sorry not aware of celebrity drama or even know who that is. All white people look the same to me
So as far as this meme is concerned, you are illiterate. You don’t even really know what you are saying with it. Using Krasinski to talk about unacknowledged privilege adds a thick layer of unintentional irony that probably undermines your message. Perhaps you should express yourself using the elements of your own culture that you understand rather than appropriating those of others.
For imperialist Americans to insist that others are appropriating their fucking culture they ram down everyone’s throats is ridiculous. This is just some guy from a TV show I never watched that is commonly used on the internet.
Kindly: did posting this make you feel better?
Removed by mod
yeah real expensive vegan products like beans, moron
Removed by mod
