Veganism: A Discussion - Page 28

On September 22 2012 10:10 Lucy1nTheSky wrote:
If health were the only motivating factor behind my decision, I do not know if i would still be vegan, because i also believe that optimal health may be achieved with a diet that includes animal products. The main 2 reasons for my continued veganism are sustainability and the evolution of consciousness.

On September 22 2012 12:17 kmillz wrote:


You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?

On September 22 2012 12:24 TSORG wrote:


This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.

I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.

From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:

Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.

You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:

1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.

You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.

2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.

Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.

I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.

But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.

Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.

This means the following:

1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.

But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.

Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.


So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.

I shall elaborate:


1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives.
4. Plants live.
5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)

This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.

Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.

On September 22 2012 12:58 SolonTLG wrote:


First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!

Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."

My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.

Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."

Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.

Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.

On September 22 2012 12:50 StayPhrosty wrote:


Hey, thanks for replying. I added a little bit at the bottom of my post as well. I would actually be quite interested in understanding why you chose to be pro-life. Just as a sort of theoretical exercise, I'm wondering why you place value (assuming you do) in the act of sex more than the decision every minute before it or every minute after it (this decision being to have sex immediately and to get an abortion, respectively). On another note, I would ask if you believe in abortion in the case of rape or coercion. Would you be against only late-term abortions (where it actually is nearly a baby), or would you also be against very early forms where all you do is take a pill and a few cells die off. As well, what about using contraception?

In continuation from my above post, I would like to know why you don;t value animal life? I'm assuming you would grow to love a pet dog, and wouldn't want any harm to come to it, so why not a chicken? Personally my gut reaction is to just see chickens as food, but the more I think about it this is only because that was how I grew up. There is no reason I cannot chose to love a pet chicken just as much as a pet bird or pet fish, etc.

You say that vegans don't try to convince animals not to eat meat, but if you read back a little I'm fairly certain there have been a few that have said they would love for all animals to be able to survive without killing each other. No, it's not currently feasible to do something like that, but it doesn't mean it can't be a goal for the possible future.

The argument that animals have always hunted each other has been debunked many times in earlier threads, but I'll try to summarize. (This also applies to all the bs posts about what foods humans were 'meant' to eat etc.) Basically 'nature' has no 'intent' and as such it is incorrect to say that humans or animals are 'meant' to do something, just because they have done it in the past. People evolved to be serial killers and rapists, but in today's society we act to stop these things because we believe we know a better way to live. It is the same for modern medicine, sure the injured cave man may have died in the wild, but that does not mean we shouldn't do everything in our power today to help aid someone with a medical issue.

Your last little tidbit is a sort of suggestion that we have no power to change the lives of those around us. I believe this to be incorrect. Yes, there are many staunch supporters of both meat and veganism in this thread, but their presence does not change the fact that there are still rational individuals who may read a post like this and perhaps consider another point of view. We as human beings now interact socially more than ever. We are all connected through facebook and twitter, and just through plain old hanging out with friends and/or family. If i were to decide to vote for a particular political candidate, you might say this is similar to one person deciding to be a vegan. I have a lot more influence then you for notice, though. When I vote, I don't just sit alone and vote and never say anything, I chat with my friends, and if one of them brings up voting for a different candidate, I get in a discussion about the values of each candidate. Maybe I convince my 2 friends and 1 sibling that my candidate makes the best choices, then those 3 talk to a few of their other friends or relatives, and so on. These things affect many people, and yes, it is not a guarantee that the world will change just because 1 person decides something like this, it has the possibility to bring about massive change. If i also include financial support/incentive in my decision, then all of a sudden if it spreads it makes a big impact on the market and on our lives. Perhaps I get involved in a local group of like-minded individuals, and together we recruit a few more, and eventually we change the mind of our local mp/senator/house representative. That person has actual sway in the government, and they have friends who are also mp's/senators/representatives. So sure, not everyone is going to have an epiphany, but I think it's important for people to figure out what they're passionate about, and to get others passionate about it as well. No, it's no excuse for 'holier than thou' vegans to preach, but this thread is equally full of meat eaters spewing baseless hatred towards an entire group of people they don't know personally.

On September 22 2012 12:58 SolonTLG wrote:


First, thank you for your well written reply. The last person that addressed my argument above said I wasn't vegan because I possibly inhaled a bug while sleeping, lol!

Second, you wrote: "If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives."

My response is that we, as human, cannot judge that actions of other species. We can only consider the ethics of what we do.

Thrid, you wrote: "This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant."

Plant don't have brains or central nervous systems, and thus cannot feel pain. Plants are not animals and I am talking about speciesism regarding animals specifically.

Finally, if you really are concerned about plants, then you do realize you will consume fewer plants by eating them directly rather than animals consuming them first and eating the meat, a very inefficient process. It takes about 20 calories of plant matter in an animal to get 1 calorie of meat out of an animal.

On September 22 2012 13:14 TSORG wrote:


No problem. To respond to what you say:

I know we cannot judge the actions of other species but to reject speciesism means that no individual is given special consideration, or is assigned different values. To be simple it means that every (living) being is equal. If that is the case what I said will follow if you couple it to veganism. But even if we cannot judge other animals and only judge ourselves, what I say still follows. We might not be able to say that it is bad for a lion to kill a gazelle because a lion is a different species, thus we cannot judge it, but we will be able to say that a human cannot kill a lion. And if a human cannot kill a lion, it cannot kill a mouse, it cannot kill a bug, it cannot kill a plant. The list might even go on perhaps to entail microbes etc but I'd have to dig deeper into their biological status than I care to, to do so.

To the thing you say about plants not being sentient I've already given a response in my initial post. But to repeat the core

It is not bad to kill a man only because he feels pain, its always bad to kill a man, even if you kill a man that does not feel pain, or if you kill a man in a painless way. Thus, if to kill is bad, it doesn't matter if a plant can feel, it only matters if a plant can live, which it does. Moreover, since we can only eat something which lives or has lived (otherwise it will have no nutritional value) for us to eat will most likely mean to kill something in order to eat it. Unless ofcourse we scavenge, or only eat the byproducts of the living (fruits, eggs, milk etc).

Lastly, plants a species of living beings, if you reject speciesism for animals you must also reject it for plants, otherwise you discriminate against plants and you do so based on them being not sentient.

I'm sorry if this sounds like being a smart ass but I just thought I had to point that out. You can ofcourse still be a vegan, but the rejection of speciesism is not a reason to be vegan, in fact, and I hope I've made this clear, its actually incompatible with veganism unless you wish to die.

As for my personal views, I do not specifically care about plants or animals, I eat both.

On September 22 2012 13:35 SolonTLG wrote:


I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.

As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.

On September 22 2012 13:38 BlueBird. wrote:


I don't consider plants sentient beings or whatever, however I can easily dismiss the plant killing argument for you.

In order to eat a cow, it must be raised and fed, it is mostly fed plant matter. By eating cow, I am indirectly killing way more plants AS well as the cow, in order to obtain the same amount of energy I could have got from a few plants.

Like I said before, i don't care about the plants, but If I for some reason did, I have to survive, and killing less plants(if for some reason they are sentient) is more humane then killing more plants and the animals that ate them.

On September 22 2012 13:28 StayPhrosty wrote:



It seems TSORG has written a response, but it seems he is fighting more the definition of speciesism, rather than your core belief, so I would like to respond to you instead. (yes, it's important that you understand the definitions, so you may defend your position more accurately, but I believe it to be more relevant to address your core belief, not a misunderstanding on both parts of how exactly to word your position)

Hypothetically, if we advance as a species and begin to colonize other plantets, what would you say about the following situation:

we happen upon another planet inhabited by sentient 'cave man' - like beings. we know they have consciousness, and we know they feel pain. we can see them torturing and killing one another by the millions.

would you intervene? would you stop them from killing each other senselessly? I would say that it important that we consider the ethics of what everything does, not just ourselves.

I should have been more clear and consistent you are correct on that. When I think of speciesism, I only refer to species of the Animal kindom. While that may not satisfy you, for me it is the best way I can think about my veganism.

As a vegan, I try to minimize harm to others, as you rightly noted in the definition of veganism. However, I do have to eat something, and eating a plant that cannot feel pain is certainly better than killing a sentient being.

I don't consider plants sentient beings or whatever, however I can easily dismiss the plant killing argument for you.

In order to eat a cow, it must be raised and fed, it is mostly fed plant matter. By eating cow, I am indirectly killing way more plants AS well as the cow, in order to obtain the same amount of energy I could have got from a few plants.

Like I said before, i don't care about the plants, but If I for some reason did, I have to survive, and killing less plants(if for some reason they are sentient) is more humane then killing more plants and the animals that ate them.

On September 22 2012 13:59 TSORG wrote:


I can fully understand that you have to put bounderies somewhere, otherwise the rejection of speciesism combined with your words that you do not wish to discriminate (against anything) would put you on a slippery slope where one could no longer justify even the use or abuse of something we consider as petty as a rock.

But while you put your boundaries at sentient being (as you say, in order to survive) it is not weird or different that other people, for various reasons (such as culture, health, ignorance, religion etc) choose to put their boundary at rational/human being.

As you say, you abstain from eating animals because you do not wish to cause (needless) suffering, and I think this is the case for most people who do the same. But this still does not explain why one would not become a vegetarian but becomes a vegan. A vegan also does not consume the animal byproducts that in no way cause suffering to the animal if not taken from the animal in a harmful or degrading way. Also the decrease of suffering does not explain why one could not use the remains of something that is already dead. Suppose a cow dies of old age, what harm would it do the dead animal if I would make a coat for the winter out of its skin.

Also the argument of decreasing suffering, while I can sympathise with it and find nothing really wrong with it does also mean two things:

1. If it turns out that plants are sentient (or if plants evolve to be sentient) that we can no longer eat plants.
2. If we could find a way to kill animals in a way that did not cause suffering or if we would find a way to make animals non-sentient beings it would not be wrong to eat animals.

Now I understand that both these notions I put forward seem hypothetical, farfetched and not something you would consider in your daily life, the problem remains that because we are now talking about morals, and there is a problem to both live and live by your morals if 1. should be the case. You would have to make a choice to either die or change your morals.

And if 2. would be the case I doubt you would find it acceptable even though it does not go against your morals (of causing as little suffering in your effort to survive).

I am exaggerating a little bit ofcourse, but the fact remains that in order to decrease animal suffering involved in your nutrition it would be sufficient to become a vegetarian. To become a vegan can only serve the purpose of being a protest imo, a rather radical protest and as with all radical causes most moderate people find it rather hard to understand the cause or the people that rally behind it. Atleast that is the case for myself.

On September 22 2012 13:59 TSORG wrote:


I can fully understand that you have to put bounderies somewhere, otherwise the rejection of speciesism combined with your words that you do not wish to discriminate (against anything) would put you on a slippery slope where one could no longer justify even the use or abuse of something we consider as petty as a rock.

But while you put your boundaries at sentient being (as you say, in order to survive) it is not weird or different that other people, for various reasons (such as culture, health, ignorance, religion etc) choose to put their boundary at rational/human being.

As you say, you abstain from eating animals because you do not wish to cause (needless) suffering, and I think this is the case for most people who do the same. But this still does not explain why one would not become a vegetarian but becomes a vegan. A vegan also does not consume the animal byproducts that in no way cause suffering to the animal if not taken from the animal in a harmful or degrading way. Also the decrease of suffering does not explain why one could not use the remains of something that is already dead. Suppose a cow dies of old age, what harm would it do the dead animal if I would make a coat for the winter out of its skin.

Also the argument of decreasing suffering, while I can sympathise with it and find nothing really wrong with it does also mean two things:

1. If it turns out that plants are sentient (or if plants evolve to be sentient) that we can no longer eat plants.
2. If we could find a way to kill animals in a way that did not cause suffering or if we would find a way to make animals non-sentient beings it would not be wrong to eat animals.

Now I understand that both these notions I put forward seem hypothetical, farfetched and not something you would consider in your daily life, the problem remains that because we are now talking about morals, and there is a problem to both live and live by your morals if 1. should be the case. You would have to make a choice to either die or change your morals.

And if 2. would be the case I doubt you would find it acceptable even though it does not go against your morals (of causing as little suffering in your effort to survive).

I am exaggerating a little bit ofcourse, but the fact remains that in order to decrease animal suffering involved in your nutrition it would be sufficient to become a vegetarian. To become a vegan can only serve the purpose of being a protest imo, a rather radical protest and as with all radical causes most moderate people find it rather hard to understand the cause or the people that rally behind it. Atleast that is the case for myself.

On September 22 2012 13:25 kmillz wrote:



I am going to say that personally I think it would be hypocritical to be pro-life with exceptions (other than the mother being at risk of dying, because an abortion terminates a life, not having an abortion could terminate another life) because if one considers an unborn baby from a mother who got pregnant from having sex as a life worth protecting, they cannot say that the life of an unborn baby from a mother who was raped is any less valuable. I know many people will disagree and think I am heartless to say a mother who was raped should not be allowed to have an abortion, but it is my belief that an unborn fetus is just as valuable as a born baby. I believe life begins at the moment of conception despite not having a religion (if I had to say where my beliefs lie, I would say they lean more towards agnosticism) because that is when life first begins to develop. Sperm and egg separate = no development. Sperm and egg combine = start of human development. For this reason, I am compelled (in order to not be a hypocrite) to say that I am also against the morning after pill, but I support all other forms of contraception.

I'll rephrase what I said about not valuing animal life. I don't value an animals right to life as much as I value it as a resource for food. That being said, I don't think it is right to mindlessly slaughter animals if it is to no benefit of anyone, but I do support using animals as a resource for food and to test on for medicine.

In regards to my comment of us not having the power to change everyone into a vegan, I say this because it is simply unrealistic to expect everybody to convert. You are more likely to get everyone to follow the same religion than you are to get everyone to stop eating meat, that is all I meant.

On September 22 2012 14:19 SolonTLG wrote:


I actually don't think most people try to minimze needless suffering, otherwise everyone would be vegan, lol!

Regarding vegetarian to vegan, some vegans argue that the dairy and egg industries actually cause MORE suffering than the beef, pork, and poultry industries (on an animal-by-animal basis).

-Dairy cows are repeatedly impregnanted and attached to milking machines that cause infection. Their male calves are sent to veal farms and then slaughtered. The female calves are put back in the same industrial process.

-Male chicks are often ground-up alive because only hens are needed in the egg industry. Many egg laying hens never go outside a day in their short lives.

Regarding your hypothetical about plant consciousness, well, I get back to you if that happens. I don't have an answer for you now.

On September 22 2012 14:24 TSORG wrote:
True it is quite f'd up and goes more into the debate of bio-engineering and altering dna and such things.

About the egg business part, I understand that you would not buy it now considering the stance that you take of diminishing animal harm, that is why I say it is a protest. You do not eat meat because you do not want the animal to die and suffer in the process of dieing to provide you food. You do not eat the egg because you want to protest how the eggs are obtained not because eating eggs in itself is wrong to you. Thus would everyone produce humane eggs as you call them, you would eat them, I assume, atleast there would be no reason not to.

As for respecting people's effort, there are also people who think about this matter and still decide to remain ominivores based on other grounds than inertia alone. I hope you respect them and their views as well and that they respect yours.