this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
614 points (96.2% liked)
memes
10719 readers
2472 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I just want to ask for more details on the "they're litterally right" part. Mostly cause I didn't think the had an official organized statement to be right about. But I don't really follow them, so maybe I'm missing something.
Veganism is, in fact:
A. Far more sustainable.
B. Perfectly healthy.
C. Completely possible to adapt to.
Veganism, without a doubt, would be better for the planet, and probably better for humans. I simply don't like the communities.
I will agree with you on B and C. Not so much on A. Not saying A isn't true, just that it isn't as simple as most people think. And probably is impossible to prove due to all the unknown side effects. An example of a side effect not related to veganism is the effect monocrop farming has on bees. Noone saw that coming until it happened. So changes to what is planted and such to support veganism could turn out to be less sustainable for reasons we can't fathom. Similar on the "better for the planet". We can't really know that. So I wouldn't put that under "litterally" right. Just probably right. In general I think diversity is better than one thing or the other. In the US the balance is way over toward the animal side. Shifting toward less of that would for sure be good. But going all the way to no animal products will probably have it's own issues on things.
There sort of is. The term "vegan" was coined by some members of the Vegetarian Society of the UK in the 1940s (at the time veganism and vegan diet were mostly referred to by terms such as "strict vegetarianism" or "no animal food" etc.), who shortly after founded the Vegan Society [of the UK]. The latter has an "official" definition of veganism:
Of course individual vegans may have slightly different definitions, and may interpret them differently, but as a whole this seems to be a fairly accurate definition for many vegans (although there are some exceptions, e.g. people who adopt plant-based diets for (percieved or actual) health benefits, or religious reasons, sometimes (but not always) also refer to themselves as "vegans").
As to the "literally right" part (I assume the OP was referring to veganism in general, not the specific issue of the thread), it mostly boils down to whether or not we think the statement "it is (morally) wrong to unnecessarily cause harm to animals" is correct. Since most people (with perhaps the exception of some with rare medical conditions) can survive just fine on a diet free of animal products (same goes for clothing etc.), we can conclude that it is at least unnecessary to use animal products. Thus, if we agree with the rest of the statement (i.e. that exploiting animals for their meat or other products causes them harm) we should also agree with veganism as an ethical stance. Naturally this could be discussed in much more detail and with many caveats, but for me this is more or less the core of the argument. And as it turns out, a lot of moral philosophers from different meta-ethical schools (such as utilitarianism, Kantian ethics or virtue ethics) seem to agree at the very least that the arguments in favour of veganism are much stronger than those in defense of eating meat (and particularly those in defense of factory farming). Some further reading for those interested:
Yeah, I don't consider any moral stance to be "litterally right". They seem like opposites to me. And clearly philosophy is by definition is a personal view point. Thanks for the history and such. Your comment adds a lot of value to the discussion, which is great to see.
kant himself was not a vegetarian, and did not advocate for it. modern philosophers who have attempted to shoehorn animal rights into Kantian ethics are thoroughly rebutted.
I didn't say anything about Kant himself (Kant also thought that non-human animals were basically just "things" without rationality or self-consciousness, which is however in direct conflict with the current scientific consensus. Kant still argued in favour of treating animals "humanely", just not for their own sake). Anyway, some well-known and well-respected contemporary philosophers who argue(d) from a Kantian perspective in favour of animal rights include e.g. Christine Korsgaard or Tom Regan, and many lesser known philosophers (see e.g. here for a recent example). I also see no indication that these types of arguments as a whole are supposedly "thoroughly rebutted" (not that serious philosophy really works like that anyway). Some other philosophers disagree with some of their arguments, of course (this is normal in philosophy), and many don't subscribe to Kantianism in the first place, but afaik most of them tend to take issue with how Kantian ethics is applied (or that it is applied) moreso than that they're trying to defend animal exploitation as such. Either way, none of that changes the fact that ethicists have been using Kantian ethics (among many other meta-ethical frameworks, as I said before) to argue in favour of animal rights, and that there aren't really many arguments in defense of killing animals for food (in particular in the context of factory farming) that find widespread support (among moral philosophers, that is).
I knew youd reference korsgaard. but her view is far from mainstream and incisively dismantled in Why Kant Animals Have Rights?
The author of the article you mentioned (Alex Howe) is a good example for what I insinuated: He takes issue with Korsgaard's argument (and, it seems, Kantian ethics more generally), but in his PhD thesis argues for granting "basic citizenship rights" to domestic animals (including farm animals), which is arguably a far more radical position than veganism, which merely posits that it is immoral to exploit (or be cruel towards) animals (e.g. as a food resource). Either way, if you have an issue with Kantian ethics and how they are applied to animal rights, I suggest you take it up with a Kantian (which I am not). And, even if I am repeating myself, none of this has any direct relevance to my earlier point, which is that many moral philosophers from many different schools of thought (including, but by no means limited to, Kantian ethics) have arrived at conclusions which are at least similar to the basic vegan stance, i.e. that unnecessarily causing harm to (sentient) animals, e.g. by exploiting them as food, is immoral.
far more kantian philosophers (or bare practitioners) reject claims for animal rights, and rightly so. mentioning kant in this context is falsely propping up the animal rights position. why not depend entirely on utilitarianism and other ethical philosophies which do support animal rights?
animal rights are simply incongruent with Kantian ethics, no matter how many academics attempt to make tenure on claiming otherwise.