Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from [email protected] for being fake vegans.
From my perspective, the comments were in no way insulting and just part of completely normal interaction. If this decision reflects the general opinion of the mod team, then from my perspective, the biggest vegan community on Lemmy wants to be an elitist cycle of hardcore vegans only, not allowing any slightly different opinion. Which would be very unfortunate.
PS: In contrast to the name of this community, I don't want to insult anyone here being a 'bastard'. I just want to post this somewhere on neutral ground. I would really appreciate an open discussion without bashing anyone.
PPS: Some instances or clients seem to compress the screenshots in a way they're unreadable. Find the full resolution here: https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm
Linking the affected users and mods: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
this is just a lie. one type of ethical study, utilitarianism, is focused on that. many ethical theories don't regard suffering at all, or only as a facet of some other concern.
I'd argue minimizing suffering is basis for all ethics, just that they are achieving it in different ways.
Deontological ethics in a vacuum cause more suffering than utilitarianism. Yet (most) deontological philosophies seek to achieve as much good as possible - and therefore minimizing harm. Kant's categorical imperative is - as a layman - just a formalization of: "Do what is good for you AND others. Don't do what is good for you but bad for others."
And I believe if you ask an ethics board at a why something was not permitted, you will always get the result: "Causes too much harm". This happens despite them being allowed to evaluate based on many different philosophies.
I know very little ethics systems that don't inevitable lead to a society with less suffering if strictly followed by most. Although that might just be because society as is is objectively unethical.
all divine command theories only incidentally reduce harm, and only sometimes. and kant (like all deontologists) is not concerned with outcomes, only the correctness of the action.
From my limited knowledge, Kant was concerned with rationality first and foremost. But suffering just happens to be one of the most irrational things there is. In no world is there ever a benefit to increasing suffering because if you apply this universally you too would experience increased suffering which is irrational.
I don't think this is a coincidence. You could create a deontological philosophy that bases everything on irrationality and it would remain consistent if viewed through the lens of itself. Irrational maxims lead to contradictions, meaning this philosophy too is irrational and contradictory - which is consistent if you seek to apply irrationality universally.
Why didn't Kant come up with the inversion of his philosophy if it remains consistent? I'd argue because it would have lead to maximizing suffering which (mostly) nobody wants.
you don't know what you're talking about.
Indeed, I have not studied philosophy and have only received an introduction and high-level overview from school. Which is why I'm continuously stating that I am far from an expert in regards to ethics and philosophy and this is more of an amateur reading.
if you don't know, you can just not say anything.
I don't know maths beyond university linear algebra and calculus. I can still provide my opinion on math problems despite my limited knowledge because knowledge is not binary.
If you presented your ideas on mathematics that are above your understanding level, you'd be called out on the same way.
you didn't frame it as an opinion. it was stated as fact. and it's wrong
So if I understand correctly, a cow can be killed with a gun to the back of the head painlessly and its death prevents hunger for an entire family for the winter so killing it is ethical. Got it.
Again, I'm not vegan nor particularly experienced in vegan arguments but there is clear suffering here:
Edit: Also, I'm not really trying to justify eating animals. TBH I'm ironically more sympathetic to Vegans due to me being a hunter. Frankly I think meat eaters should have to participate in the harvesting of an animal you eat at least once before age of majority. That would at least confer appreciation for some of what is involved.
There are various more - and far better articulated - reasons why killing is bad by the way. Here are some: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/67606/why-is-murder-wrong
Still, I believe it is hardly possible to reliably kill without involving suffering anywhere.
Though I would consider hunting to be the most ethical variant. It's not even a battle when factory farming exists.
I really don't need reasons why killing is bad :P
TBH all vegan's ethics can be countered with 'check your privilege'.
they're provided, veterinary care, protection from the elements, protection from predators, drinkable water, space to graze, and opportunities to socialize. it's not imprisonment.
Those have nothing to do with imprisonment.
If I locked 10 people in a room and regularly gave them food and water they would still be imprisoned because they couldn't leave.
We know humans suffer from imprisonment and we accept since the mid 20th century that this applies to all humans. It's not a big stretch to assume imprisonment causes suffering for animals as well.
Besides, most cows on the planet have literally nothing of what you described. Except maybe drinkable water and protection from predators.
it's not imprisonment. it's husbandry
that's not true.
Most cows on the planet are currently living in factory farms as cattle a few months away from being slaughtered.
Not in factory farms. Preventative antibiotics are not veterinary care.
Limited protection. In summer extreme heat from being stuck inside without air conditioning.
Not inside factory farms.
Not inside factory farms.
so you see they do get protection from the elements
most dairies, even large scale dairies, have pasture. beef cattle are raised 12 to 14 months grazing before going to a feedlot. so where are all these life-long confined cattle?
it seems like you think cattle spend their entire lives in a cafo. they don't.
they are, and that's not all the care they get
edit: I have been politely asked not to engage in the off topic discussion in this community.
What other care do they get?
care to cite this?
Good lord you argue in bad faith. One line replies of basically "no", "doubt it", "citation needed".
Like, come on man. How insufferable.
this isn't evidence, it's a rhetorical complaint about being asked for evidence.
edit: I have been politely asked not to engage in the off topic discussion in this community.
How isn't it evidence?
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
No u
US 2022:
Haven't found any numbers for other countries.
a full 1/4 of all cattle never spend more than 45 days in a cafo, but even those that do don't necessarily have the conditions you are describing, nor do they live there their entire lives
edit: I have been politely asked not to engage in the off topic discussion in this community.
Where's your citation for this
Is so.
saying it doesn't make it true
It does
no, we don't. we don't even know if they understand personal mortality
We know several intelligent animals have some sort of concept of death because they are capable of mourning. This doesn't prove they understand personal mortality but it proves that they understand the mortality of others to some extent which is a necessity for understanding your own.
My argument why cows do not want to die is a basic evolutionary one:
Individuals that do not want to die are more likely to reproduce than one's that want to die. It is therefore likely that cow populations today largely do not want to die.
Also, being neutral to the concept of death - or even not knowing about it - implies the absence of a wish to die. If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.
Right. but moot. if that's the case then why bring it up at all? we should only be concerned with things that we can prove and base our conclusions on provable fact.
I think it's probably accurate to say they don't want to die, cuz they don't know it's a thing that they could want.