Can you make a sound, MORAL/ETHICAL argument for NOT being Vegan?
Even if you think you would or could never be a vegan...can you make an ethical argument against the idea that anyone who has the means to be vegan SHOULD be vegan?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
I haven't spent a great deal of time debating this but i think the basic argument could be structured thusly:
It is generally preferable to cause least amount of suffering possible in something which can suffer. If we need not cause animals to suffer then what moral or ethical justification do we have to inflict suffering?
And that's putting aside the environmental arguments because producing livestock takes far more resources than producing plant matter.
@Pikachu yeah, me neither. I am kinda new to it as well
But I guess the inflection point we got here is the conceptualization of suffering. From what I see, plants and animals both will have to suffer in order for other organisms to consume their nutrients. But it appears the suffering of one is justified and the other is not because they differ when taking their life and nutrients for one's own.
[quote] If we need not cause animals to suffer then what moral or ethical justification do we have to inflict suffering? [/quote] We do not have a need to inflict suffering purposelessly. But animals will die and suffer with or without us. For us to consume their nutrients is justifiable since it's a natural part of our diet.
[quote]And that's putting aside the environmental arguments because producing livestock takes far more resources than producing plant matter[/quote] This actually is a strong argument if producing livestock leaves a disproportionate and unjustifiable carbon footprint and toll on resources. Balance is necessary and we should not be dealing with animals if it is negatively impacting everything.
[quote] plants and animals both will have to suffer in order for other organisms to consume their nutrients[/quote]
Even leaving aside the question of how much a plant can possibly suffer as compared to an animal, there's still no getting around the fact that by consuming animals and animal products we're increasing the overall level of suffering because the majority of plant material that we cultivate and produce goes...you guessed it: to feeding livestock. So if the goal is to reduce suffering as much as possible then the objectively preferable option is to stop consuming animals.
[quote] But animals will die and suffer with or without us.[/quote]
Yes, animals will suffer and die without us as well but that goes nowhere to making a case that we should seek not to add to that suffering and death.
[quote] For us to consume their nutrients is justifiable since it's a natural part of our diet.[/quote]
That, my friend, is a naturalistic fallacy. Eating animals is not ethically or morally good simply on the basis that it comes naturally.
@Pikachu fair point if crops are being harvested to feed the animals. How about we consider the case of Africans who hunt game or farms where animals graze freely in large pastures. Would this change anything since the only consumption and suffering caused wouldn't be by raising and harvesting plants but by directly hunting the animal instead? Would that solve the production of farm feed for livestock?
[quote] Yes, animals will suffer and die without us as well but that goes nowhere to making a case that we should seek not to add to that suffering and death [/quote] Two things here. Firstly, we can literally apply this to plants. Plants will die anyways, so why add to their suffering by consuming them against their will, considering they do not consent to us to be eaten, right?
Secondly: So what of the case of carnivores? Are carnivores adding to their suffering or is it a natural death without added suffering?
Third optional point that may follow up the carnivores, what is additional in suffering if the animal is dead like how carnivores hunt?
[quote] That, my friend, is a naturalistic fallacy. Eating animals is not ethically or morally good simply on the basis that it comes naturally [/quote] Actually, this time it appears you're mistaken. Because we need cobalamin or vitamin B13 from meat. It is in our nature to eat meat and we have enzymes for it, too. This is not a naturalistic fallacy because it is a health situation for the human species and diet. Vegans take pills because they eat unnaturally or they eat fish. Some way shape or form, we require it. Almost like skipping vimatin C and getting scurvy, no?
[quote] Africans who hunt game or farms where animals graze freely in large pastures[/quote]
Well that's definitely an improvement but you're still having to take an animal's life. Just pretend you bred a human for the purpose of consuming them and you gave them a good life and then killed them relatively painlessly at 18 years of age. Well that's better than keeping them in a 3x5 cage for their whole life and then shoving them in a gas chamber but it's still not great, morally speaking.
[quote]Plants will die anyways, so why add to their suffering by consuming [/quote]
A couple of reasons. First, as we've established more plants will be grown and consumed if we insist on continuing to eat meat and animal products so turning to a plant based diet results in a net reduction of harm to plants. Second, we have to keep focused on the target which is reduction of suffering to the extent possible. It simply isn't possible to live without consuming organic material and at this stage that has to come at a minimum from plant life. There's no way around it and therefor no moral issue surrounding it in the same way that there is no moral issue with an obligate carnivore like a cat eating animals, which i think addresses your next point.
[quote]Vegans take pills because they eat unnaturally[/quote]
So...what you've described is a way in which vegans can get all the nutrients they need without animal products. So what's the problem? If we have to supplement in order to reduce animal suffering then does that change the ethical onus to do so?
@Pikachu [quote] Well that's definitely an improvement but you're still having to take an animal's life [/quote] My point is we eat the animal regardless because that's not a valid point. You don't provide the same excuse for plants. Nust really ask yourself why
[quote]First, as we've established more plants will be grown and consumed if we insist on continuing to eat meat and animal products so turning to a plant based diet results in a net reduction of harm to plants. [/quote] Yeah, this is honestly a strong positive if that's actually the effect it has. I also like how now you're coming to value life now by working to reduce destruction to plant life.
[quote]Second, we have to keep focused on the target which is reduction of suffering to the extent possible. [/quote] I don't think this is the target for any vegan. Any vegan that thinks they're serving this is actually shooting themselves in the foot and I'll demonstrate how shortly by responding to your next point.
[quote]So...what you've described is a way in which vegans can get all the nutrients they need without animal products. So what's the problem? [/quote] The problem is the dishonesty. The problem is the hypocrisy. The problem is the double the standard. The problen is the blatant disregard of suffering. Recall the last point as to how vegans like to present themselves as advocates for preventing suffering. Preventing unnecessary destruction of life and pain. Why don't vegans take supplements to save plant lives if they're willing to do so for animal lives? Is it merely cuz plants suffer in a different way to animals? Then that exposes a false advertisement of nobility by preserving life as much as possible and reducing suffering as much as possible. The reality is, vegans know you can take a life to consume its nutrients for your health. Such is the course of life. From a bacteria, to a plant, to an insect, to a fish, to an elephant or other animate surface animal, we all understand that in this world: things will die and organisms will eat to gain nutrients even at the expense or another creature's life. [b]Unnecessary and unjustifiable[/b] suffering is undoubtedly evil, but you cannot take a life without causing it harm and suffering. This is the clear understanding vegans have with plants and even insects but somehow wish to apply some new standard and switch up the scene for just animals. Just because of what exactly? They provide proteins and cobalamin as opposed to vitamin C and vegetable minerals? Because they possess skin and meat as opposed to bark and leaves? Because they breathe air as opposed to carbon? Because they're just simply more like us so magically plants deserve to die more because we don't relate or understand plants as much as animals?
Basically: [quote]If we have to supplement in order to reduce animal suffering then does that change the ethical onus to do so?[/quote] Not at all. Nothing changes so long as we do not protect other lives with supplements. Unless vegans want to give us their pretty little claim about suffering, they have to release insects, fish, and plants from having to die because those nutrients are not also being consumed via supplements.
A geeat question is, if vegans really wanna reduce [b]suffering[/b] so much and they can use supplements, why must plants suffer and die for no reason when they're saving animals?
And if I reiterated the point, no need to respond individually each time. One answer for the same 5 questions will do. I'm not pushy like that btw :o
But hopefully you see my point why vegans make no sense to make a moral or ethical argument like this. It's like saying "Let's only save white people in the name of [stop suffering]" when the same people pushing for this could stop [b]all[/b] the suffering.
[quote]My point is we eat the animal regardless because that's not a valid point. You don't provide the same excuse for plants. Nust really ask yourself why[/quote]
Actually i'm really unclear as tot he point you're trying to make here... Perhaps you can elaborate and clarify.
[quote]I don't think this is the target for any vegan[/quote]
Actually i think you'll find that most vegans will consider any reduction in the consumption of animals and animal products to be a positive step in the right direction.
[quote]ny vegan that thinks they're serving this is actually shooting themselves in the foot and I'll demonstrate how[/quote]
Well i don't think you demonstrated that at all. It seems to me (and correct me if i'm mischaracterizing this) what you did was talk about how you think that plants suffer but in a way less relatable to us as animals and how it's wrong for vegans to be ok with that suffering. You asked why don't vegans take supplements to save plant lives...are you aware of a supplement regime derived from inorganic sources which can replace the need for consumption of any organic material or is that purely hypothetical? Because if it's the latter then you're not actually levelling a criticism at the ethos of veganism which seeks to reduce suffering [u][i]where possible[/i][/u] . In that case i don't see where the dishonesty and hypocrisy enters into it.
@Pikachu [quote] Actually i'm really unclear as tot he point you're trying to make here... Perhaps you can elaborate and clarify [/quote] same foundational premise I've been pushing for tbh. We eat plants knowing they gotta suffer too
[quote] Actually i think you'll find that most vegans will consider any reduction in the consumption of animals and animal products to be a positive step in the right direction [/quote] Why yes, of course. However, this is based on the idea to reduce suffering wherever possible. I am just saying that is not genuine because a lot of pla ts suffer unnecessarily. We eat them anyways, vegans eat them anyways. What is to withhold such disregard from animals? Or what provides animals with a special case?
[quote] It seems to me (and correct me if i'm mischaracterizing this) what you did was talk about how you think that plants suffer but in a way less relatable to us as animals and how it's wrong for vegans to be ok with that suffering [/quote] Precisely. Vegans indiscriminately eat all kinds of plants. They are not even reducing the variety of plants they kill to make sure they consume less and less plants and keep their diets true to this principle: [quote]veganism which seeks to reduce suffering [u]where possible[/u][/quote] Tis quite literally my whole point. The ethos is not pure and carried out as it is advertised.
A problem I hope we both see is that pills cannot replace the natural foods our bodies are designed to injest. You and I can agree on this hopefully. We can cut citrus out and consume vitamin C pills for example. Cut broccoli out for some pill. Or cut meat out for a pill. Etc. Etc. That's not how we're intended to be. Both meats and vegetables come with the natural nutrients our bodies are made for.
Hypothetical or not, for a [b]moral[/b] action, it must follow the moral principles it is founded on to truly uphold its foundational moral. If one goes on a journey to reduce suffering wherever possible, they're either living up to it or not. My question for you actually is, do you think veganism as it is today lives up to the argument that they are reducing suffering wherever possible?
Is veganism actually living up to its moral claim? Or is it clead that vegans also enjoy causing extra suffering, simply just because they're plant life?
[quote]am just saying that is not genuine because a lot of pla ts suffer unnecessarily[/quote]
Well with regard to the key issue there (unnecessary/necessary) i'm not convinced you have presented an argument that the suffering of plants is NOT at a fundamental level necessary.
[quote]The ethos is not pure and carried out as it is advertised.[/quote]
I don't think you've made that point at all. Remember: Veganism seeks to reduce suffering where [i]possible[/i]. In all honesty can you assert that you have posited a [i]possible[/i] way in which humans can live without exploiting plants? Which brings us to the next point.
[quote]Hypothetical or not,[/quote]
No, no. In this arena hypothetical vs practical matters VERY much. Because we're talking about reducing suffering where POSSIBLE, not where HYOPTHETICAL. Do you see? In the same way that the vegan ethical consideration is not concerned with making an obligate carnivore eat a plant-based diet, neither is it concerned with imaginary ways that suffering might be reduced. Practical, realistic and actionable means of reducing suffering are what matter here.
[quote]A problem I hope we both see is that pills cannot replace the natural foods our bodies are designed to injest[/quote]
Agreed. We can't get absolutely everything we need from supplements with no organic source. But we can reduce the number of supplements by turning to a plant-based diet.
[quote]Is veganism actually living up to its moral claim? Or is it clead that vegans also enjoy causing extra suffering, simply just because they're plant life?[/quote]
Are all vegans everywhere living up to that ethos? I doubt it. Is the ethos of veganism in line with those goals? Yes. You say "extra" suffering but you have not yet presented an alternative ...how is it "extra" suffering if there is no alternative which can produce less suffering? This is as opposed to the level of suffering of animals (and plants) under the current consumption of animals which CAN be reduced in a realistic way by turning to a plant-based diet.
My question to you: Do you think you're making a[i] legitimate[/i] criticism of veganism? That is to say: Are you [i]earnestly[/i] making an argument for an ethical model of consumption that you think is [i]actually possible[/i] ?
Because unless you feel you can make a case that causing no suffering to any plant is actually realistic then you're not arguing against the goals of veganism.
@Pikachu [quote]i'm not convinced you have presented an argument that the suffering of plants is NOT at a fundamental level necessary[/quote] My goal was never to advocate for the suffering of plants to be unnecessary. Quite the opposite. My aim is to establish a moral case for not being vegan. Ironically, the case for animals comes from why plants need to suffer for us. We are designed to consume them and to consume them for our health benefit meand they must suffer our consumptiom 🤷🏾♂️ Simple as that
Now my point about some plants unnecessarily struggling is that you and I both know vegans don't need to eat the vast majority of plant life available on the plate. Vegans can limit themselves to the few necessary vegetables needed for their diet. However, it does not appear that vegams are known to eat a minimalistic number of veggies. That was kind of my point. That to reduce suffering, we should see a very strict diet of the most necessary plants for good nutrition, right? And if that's implemented already, forgive me 😂 I have never discussed veganism before. I just like playing with you. Devil's or angel's advocate Unless you wanted a serious answer rather tham a mock debate, then lmk
[quote] Do you think you're making a legitimate criticism of veganism? [/quote] Not with how I am now seeing veganism. With veganism seeming to be reducing suffering of living things anywhere possible, I cannot find anything wrong with that. Rather, I'd BE a vegan. However, if it entails to reduce our animal diet to pills to "reduce suffering" then I'd disagree.
[quote] Are you earnestly making an argument for an ethical model of consumption that you think is actually possible ? [/quote] Of course. One that includes animals the same way it includes plants. We should be free to eat for our nutrients in a way that does not harm the environment. Not the food, the environment.
[quote] Because unless you feel you can make a case that causing no suffering to any plant is actually realistic then you're not arguing against the goals of veganism [/quote] I'm not going against the manifesto of veganism. Rather the implementation of its followers. But you raise a fair point here: [quote]Are all vegans everywhere living up to that ethos? I doubt it. [/quote] Thay observing the driver doesn't determine the speed limit. So I'll retract my criticisms of how veganism has manifested and return to a principle level.
Side question for clarity: Does veganism entail resorting only to a plant based diet? Even if eating mest might become the optimal solution (in a realistic scenario of course)?
lol no worries. I don't require that someone really believe the position they are defending as long as they're earnestly presenting what they consider to be valid arguments.
[quote]My aim is to establish a moral case for not being vegan[/quote]
Then i guess i'm not sure of your strategy to that end because what you appear to be arguing is that Vegans could be eating fewer plants and i'm not sure how that translates into Veganism not being the more moral approach to consumption. Even if vegans could be eating fewer plants they're still advocating a diet which results in a net reduction of suffering compared to a non-vegan diet. So how has a case been made that it is moral (or more moral) to NOT be vegan?
Additionally, up to this point i've been granting without pushback that plants can actually suffer. Do we have sufficient reason to accept that assertion ?
[quote]We should be free to eat for our nutrients in a way that does not harm the environment[/quote]
Well sure...but one of the major ethical considerations for veganism is that it also results in less damage to the environment than consuming animal products.
[quote]Does veganism entail resorting only to a plant based diet?[/quote]
No. for instance there is nothing wrong with consuming lab grown meat.
@Pikachu [quote]Even if vegans could be eating fewer plants they're still advocating a diet which results in a net reduction of suffering compared to a non-vegan diet.[/quote] Yeah, I'm just thinking about the core tenet of reducing things where possible throughout this whole thing [quote]So how has a case been made that it is moral (or more moral) to NOT be vegan?[/quote] I'm shifting away from its manifestation and practice and moving more towards the philosophy now
[quote]Additionally, up to this point i've been granting without pushback that plants can actually suffer. Do we have sufficient reason to accept that assertion ?[/quote] Of course. Anything living has a structure. We can help progress/benefit the organism in its natural design for life or destroy it. When we consume them, that goes against helping them survive. This applies to plants, insects, animals, fish, anything alive.
Do you actually believe that there is a substantial reason to reject plants being able to suffer?
[quote]Well sure...but one of the major ethical considerations for veganism is that it also results in less damage to the environment than consuming animal products[/quote] That's wonderful
[quote]No. for instance there is nothing wrong with consuming lab grown meat.[/quote] Not lab grown meat. I'm talking about animal meat. To eat and consume an animal if necessary 🤔 What does the philosophy have about when consuming animals would be less harmful for the environment and society?
[quote]When we consume them, that goes against helping them survive[/quote]
Sure. But that is distinct from suffering.
[quote]Do you actually believe that there is a substantial reason to reject plants being able to suffer? [/quote]
Well they haven't got a brain or a nervous system of any kind and therefore no mechanism by which to feel pain or experience fear etc. We know they can react to stimulus (so will your knee when the doctor tests your reflexes) but that doesn't suggest that they have the ability to process input in a way that could be called suffering.
[quote]What does the philosophy have about when consuming animals would be less harmful for the environment and society? [/quote]
Well veganism isn't a hard line "no animal products ever under any circumstances" so i suppose theoretically it could be possible. I'm not sure though.
@Pikachu [quote] Sure. But that is distinct from suffering [/quote] Please feel free to elaborate here
And that's quite interesting. So what is the closest thing to suffering that you think plants can experience from humans?
And tbh, if that's what veganism's stance is, then I must say I humbly say that our differences have been sorted out. That's my stance too so we align fortunately 🙃 To do what is optimal. But if there are any other points you'd like to discuss, feel free to let me know. I'm always game (you know me gurl 😜)
[quote]So what is the closest thing to suffering that you think plants can experience from humans?[/quote]
Well i don't know nearly enough about plant biology to say anything informed on that subject beyond what i've said already. Since they don't possess any of the apparatus which seem crucial to sentience or even conscious experience, i don't know what would be the closest thing to suffering to a plant beyond simple response to stimulus.
[quote]But if there are any other points you'd like to discuss[/quote]
Nah i think we've pretty much covered all the ground. I'm no expert in either philosophy or veganism so i'm happy with what we've achieved here 👍
@Pikachu do you think suffering doesn't include being consumed?
And I'm a layman too. I don't think biology is a necessity here fortunately. And when you say a simple response to stimuli, are you comparing the shock and damage plants can sustain from injuries or rapid exposure to heat and cold as simple responses to stimuli? Do you consider the pain receptors in skin cells being referenced as a simple response to stimuli a valid reference?
[quote]do you think suffering doesn't include being consumed? [/quote]
If you or i were consumed, yes. If a plant were consumed, well...if there's no means by which pain or fear can be registered, on what basis can something be said to be suffering?
[quote]Do you consider the pain receptors in skin cells being referenced as a simple response to stimuli a valid reference[/quote]
Yup. The activation of those pathways is just a response to stimulus but after that the condition is being perceived by a mind.
@Pikachu [quote] if there's no means by which pain or fear can be registered, on what basis can something be said to be suffering? [/quote] Good question. I guess this banks on suffering not going beyond pain and fear. Can you thinknof any examples of suffering that don't encompass pain or fear?
And that's pretty interesting. If we just respond differently to injuries, us feeling pain and plants going into shock from damage, then how can we justify harming plants any bit more than animals?
[quote]Can you thinknof any examples of suffering that don't encompass pain or fear?[/quote]
I'm sure there are other sensations and there are many other emotions that would constitute suffering. What i'm arguing there doesn't bank on suffering being just those two things. They're just examples of things that an organism without a nervous system or a brain cannot experience and if an organism cannot experience these phenomena then i don't know by what definition it can be said to be suffering.
[quote] then how can we justify harming plants any bit more than animals?[/quote]
Animals have a brain to process the pain and therefore suffer from it. Plants don't.
@Pikachu is suffering an emotional or concrete experience? Can you suffer without feeling fear or pain? Your answer is kind of confusing me 😅
[quote]Animals have a brain to process the pain and therefore suffer from it. Plants don't.[/quote] Uhmmm, perhaps you can reconsider this a bit 👀 Are you sure that this is a justifying factor? Because they simply cannot process pain from pain receptors? Because they lack a brain or the facilities to do so?
[quote]is suffering an emotional or concrete experience?[/quote]
It's both.
[quote]Can you suffer without feeling fear or pain? [/quote]
Yes. For example the loss one feels when a loved one passes away is suffering.
[quote]Because they simply cannot process pain from pain receptors? Because they lack a brain or the facilities to do so?[/quote]
And also don't have pain receptors lol. But yes, since a plant lacks the necessary mechanisms to sense, perceive and process the negative physical or emotional damage that we would call suffering, it is reasonable to conclude that they lack the ability to suffer.
But i'm willing to reconsider if you can give me a reason to. In what sense would you suggest a plant is capable of suffering?
@Pikachu [quote]But yes, since a plant lacks the necessary mechanisms to sense, perceive and process the negative physical or emotional damage that we would call suffering, it is reasonable to conclude that they lack the ability to suffer. [/quote] Not quite. Did you know that plants can perceive when another plant is nearby and might be able to take advantage of the root space, they invest heavily to take control of the undergroud resources? They can sense competition as a physical threat. Plants aren't some nonsentient, thoughtless, mechanical systems. When exposed to rapid temperature changes in a short time, or maybe shook really hard or struck, or they are transplanted, they can go into shock like many animals do.
[quote] In what sense would you suggest a plant is capable of suffering? [/quote] Much like animals. They can be hurt, evidently, and suffer injuries such as when you cut or strike them. They react and respond and work to heal. They're alive. They are mysteriously rational without a human or animal brain, sensing others and deciding to pick resource management because they get that limited resources is bad for growth. They actually communicate with one another too. Plants are surprising. And if you think sentience, rationality, and decision making are limited to humans and animals like us with pain receptirs and human/animal brains you will be surprised. Plants are a wonderful creature. I think vegans often look over them as mere food to eat. Much like how meat eaters view animals. We consume them. And the best way to also approach plants might also be a version of veganism that respects plant life as other living things as opposed to maybe closer to how we view rocks or iron in the soil. Free to use.
Don't get me wrong. I know that plants are impressive organisms in their own right and have been evolving away for millions of years and posses many interesting adaptations, chemical communications and symbiotic relationships. They're not stones sitting in the dirt unresponsively. But they are thoughtless, they're not sentient and they're not rational. Sentience requires consciousness and rationality requires reason. Two things that just aren't happening in an organism with no mechanism to process thought. What they do is react and they do it very well. We're learning more about how sophisticated some of these adaptations can be...but at the end of the day what you're doing here is attempting anthropomorphize what is fundamentally non-sentient reaction to stimulus. A plant is not rational because its roots follow the path of least resistance until they find water. A plant is not thoughtful because upon encountering a chemical it undergoes a physiological change which has proven to be adaptive.
All this to say, just because a plant interacts mechanically with the world around it does not mean it possesses the qualities necessary to experience suffering. And i think plant life is indeed worth respecting. Not everyone does but i do and in the same way i try not to kill insects needlessly i avoid killing or damaging plants where it's not necessary. Nothing wrong with respecting a life...but that's not what we're discussing just now.
So i don't think you really answered my question: In what sense would you suggest a plant is capable of suffering? You've pointed out that plants are impressively reactive but i'm not convinced you've made any argument toward them having the ability to [i]experience[/i] and if they can't do that then i don't they can be said to be suffering.
@Pikachu well, I guess we literally have just about covered everything. If the cases proposed have been denied by you, we can do nothing but go eternally back and forth and I'm not sure what else for plants can convince you that they can suffer at this point
