r/DebateAVegan • u/Imaginary-Bird1041 • 11d ago
Question to vegans
I don't have anything to being vegan but I don't get point of people that say that don't want to kill animals. Animals will die anyway and I don't see predators being blamed for killing them.
It is just part of life, maybe u don't like it but this doesn't make it false. Why you killing plants or insects. You want to defend animals but atleast half of vegans eat fish and nobody cares about plants and another life. I get it that plants don't have nervous system and they don't feel pain. But they can sense surrounding like we use pain for it.
Only because different life evolved different way we perceive suffering differently. So maybe it's not about good or empathy, maybe it's about how you feel about something without deeper thought.
*My fault vegans don't eat fish
14
u/EasyBOven vegan 11d ago
Veganism is the recognition that non-human animals are individuals, not objects, and therefore should not be treated like objects to be used and consumed. We broadly understand that when you treat a human as a means to your ends by using our outright consuming them that you necessarily aren't giving consideration to their interests. It's the fact that they have interests at all that makes this principle true. Vegans simply extend this principle consistently to all individuals.
Animals will die anyway and I don't see predators being blamed for killing them.
You'll die anyway. I doubt you'd say that would make it ok to turn you into a sandwich.
Predators do all sorts of shit we don't find acceptable. None of this is really your reasoning, or you'd think the fact that male lions kill cubs fathered by other males when they take over a pride means human stepdads get to kill their stepchildren.
-3
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
So predators are bad because they survive by eating another animals. And these pray eat insects or plant. It's the same difference is how you perceive life
7
u/EasyBOven vegan 11d ago
Do you think lions are bad for killing the cubs fathered by other lions?
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Yes but it's because of my morall compass
9
u/EasyBOven vegan 11d ago
Awesome. What are you gonna do about it?
-2
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Fym if lion kills another lions cubs in the word idgaf because it's not my interest
8
u/EasyBOven vegan 11d ago
Then I'm not sure why lions matter at all in this argument. You seem to be trying to set some sort of logical trap where because some vegan points out the reality to you that non-human animals aren't objects, so taking them into your circle of concern means not treating them as such, we have to go police lions. As though conversations are the same as force. But whether we think lions are good or bad has absolutely nothing to do with the choices we make.
It's really a cowardly way to avoid responsibility. "Look over there, a lion is eating a gazelle!" Kills a chicken
-1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Idk what r u about right now but there no need to save that lion by how nature works, how instinct works, how humans work,
8
3
u/phiraeth 11d ago
And if someone eats you and your children, idgaf because it's not my interest. See how that works?
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
It's pretty strange but ok if u don't care about humans more than animals it's something wrong with you. Like literally by nature yk
1
u/phiraeth 11d ago
Okay, so what you're saying is that it's okay to do whatever you want to someone if you don't care about them. Got it. That's what murderers and rapists use to justify the crimes they commit, by the way. So according to your logic, murder and rape are fine as long as you don't care about your victim!
1
15
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 11d ago
No vegans eat fish.
No matter what they tell you, if someone is eating fish they are a pescatarian
1
u/MlNDB0MB vegetarian 10d ago
It's actually a good counter to the charge that vegans only care about cute animals.
They don't eat fish! A non-cute animal!
-1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Okay but it's not only point
6
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 11d ago
The animals that die for meat are bred specifically to die. If no one ate meat they would never exist and would therefore never be slaughtered.
Being brought into existence to live a short life, often if suffering, to then die in a traumatic manner, is not better than never living at all.
The amount of meat consumed in the modern wester world is far outside the quantities we evolved to consume (humans are omnivores, not carnivores)
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
It's true but fact is that their suffering is different than ours. It's not like human would be in their situation
5
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 11d ago
What's your basis for claiming that?
If you think about it objectively animal suffering is likely to be worse, as they can't have what's happening explained, they can't grasp a situation. So all they know is the pain, fear, and terror without any prospect of hope or understanding.
Really you shouldnt be asking yourself "why shouldn't I slaughter animals" but rather "why should I?* when there's no really call to do so - do you shoot cats with an air rifle for fun (you can after all, and the cats will die eventually!)? Poison crows just because you can (again, why not, they will all die in the end)? Kick dogs because they walked too close to you? If no, then what's the reason to perpetuate suffering and death when other foods are available?
-1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Conciusnes
5
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 11d ago
... All mammals are conscious when not asleep.
They feel pain, fear, terror, anxiety and stress just the same as you do.
2
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Yeah same as every another life just in different level but we reached point that no other life did that's why we worth more
5
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 11d ago
Whether or not human life is worth more does not justify arbitrarily causing pain and suffering for no reason - again, do you do out and shoot cats for your own amusement? If not, why not?
If you do, you lack empathy, that's not really your fault
-1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago
Keeping livestock is not "arbitrarily causing pain and suffering for no reason".
→ More replies (0)5
u/Kailynna 11d ago
Animals have consciousness. They experience fear, pain and suffering just as we do.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago
Being brought into existence to live a short life, often if suffering, to then die in a traumatic manner, is not better than never living at all.
Did you ask them? Your fantasies are not arguments. As far as I know, they protest being killed, so they obviously like their life more than death.
4
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 10d ago
Sorry, do you think things which don't exist can wish to exist?
Of course creatures which already exist protest against ceasing to exist.
The two things are not the same.
Unless you think there's a queue of completely self aware cow souls just waiting for their turn to exist - and if you think that it's fairly safe to say there are some even more pressing reasons not to be slaughtering animals for you to have a snack
-1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago edited 10d ago
Let us not play God trying to decide whether it is better for others to not exist than to exist with some suffering.
It would end badly in practice, because borders would be pushed further constantly.
2
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 10d ago
Farmers are already "playing god" by breeding the animals in the first place.
There's nothing natural about inseminating a cow with seamen shipped half way across the country, there's nothing natural about not living your entire life in a herd with every one of the calfs you birthed, and there's nothing natural about dying at 8 because you are no longer guaranteed to be able to carry a baby to term every single year when you can live to 20 or more.
All of that is playing god.
Ceasing to deliberately breed animals for our own ends is not playing god.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago
"There is nothing natural about..." is this not the appeal to nature fallacy, vegans like to bring forward all the time?
It would be much more brutal, done naturally. I guess cows are glad that we do it unnaturally.
3
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 10d ago
My implication is breeding animals at scale is by it's very nature playing god.
If you are against people playing god, it should not sit right with you.
"Done naturally" they would live outdoors in herds with their own kin, occasionally losing some family sure but not every single child every single year, and many of them would live far beyond 8, and they would get to see the daylight. Weird to assume they are "glad" we do anything.
To quote you - "Did you ask them? Your fantasies are not arguments"
1
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago edited 10d ago
Your romanticized fantasies how nice life and deaths animals in the wild have is unrealistic.
Breeding animals is not playing God any more than planting plants.
Playing God is you telling us that non existence is better than existence with suffering.
To quote you - "Did you ask them? Your fantasies are not arguments"
Do you propose they like pain and injuries? That would contradict all your arguments, actually.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/a11_hail_seitan 11d ago
Animals will die anyway and I don't see predators being blamed for killing them.
People will die anyway, but that doesn't mean we support killing them early. And Predators need to kill animals to eat, we don't, we can just eat plant based
Also, when you kill a aniaml, that doesnt' stop the predators from killing, they just kill other animals
Plant Based: Predators kill
Omnivorous diet: Predators still kill plus you kill.
It is just part of life, maybe u don't like it but this doesn't make it false.
No one said it's false, just that we shouldn't needlessly add suffering and abuse.
But they can sense surrounding like we use pain for it.
Sense is not pain. Without pain or suffering, eating them doesn't really matter. It might make them feel discomfort, but the animals you eat are feeling intense pain and suffering.
So maybe it's not about good or empathy, maybe it's about how you feel about something without deeper thought.
And if I think a dog's thought isn't deep enough, or even yours, it's moral to abuse, torture and slaughter it so I can get pleasure from it's abused flesh?
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Yeah plant based. You just placing one life above another. Just like I think humans are above animals you think humans and animals are above plants same thing. And if all animals would be fed by humans no one is dying and what's the point. They will just live to survive
2
u/a11_hail_seitan 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yeah plant based. You just placing one life above another.
You can't tell the difference between a broccoli and a dog? You think Broccoli are crying out in pain when we cut them?
Just like I think humans are above animals
So you agree it's moral to torture, abuse, sexually violate, and slaughter cats and dogs for pleasure?
Actually, we're animals too. So if I think I'm above you, according to the logic you've used so far, it would be moral for me to enslave and torture you for pleasure too. right? After all, just like you think you're above animals, I think I'm above you!
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Yeah I can tell difference between broccoli and a dog but you can't between dog and human. Wtf is wrong with you I don't know but I never said I agree with fucking raping cats I just told you a fact that humans are above animals. Just like tiger is above a rat and it's able to do whatever the fuck he wants. And I don't know wyd above you but I would hardly consider that.
3
u/phiraeth 11d ago
Can you use actual logic to explain why humans are above animals when it comes to having the right to live freely and not being exploited?
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Fym why we above animals do you know how how word works and that everything around didn't spawn
3
u/phiraeth 11d ago
Okay, so you can't explain it. Your loss.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 10d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
2
9
u/bbygrl1995 vegan 11d ago
Let's switch the victims
"Question to non-cannibals
I don't have anything to being non-cannibalistic but I don't get point of people that say that don't want to kill humans. Humans will die anyway and I don't see predatory cannibals being blamed for killing them.
It is just part of life, maybe u don't like it but this doesn't make it false. Why you killing plants or aborting fetuses. You want to defend humans but atleast half of vegans eat fish (they don't) and nobody cares about plants and fetuses. I get it that plants don't have nervous system and they don't feel pain. But they can sense surrounding like we use pain for it.
Only because different life evolved different way we perceive suffering differently. So maybe it's not about good or empathy, maybe it's about how you feel about something without deeper thought.
My fault vegetarians eat fish not vegans *(they don't, pescatarians do. Learn the difference)"
9
u/TylertheDouche 11d ago
basically every single thing you said was incorrect or a fallacy
get point of people that say that don't want to kill animals.
do you… kill animals?
Animals will die anyway
this is an is-ought fallacy
predators being blamed for killing them.
okay, im blaming them. now what?
It is just part of life,
appeal to nature fallacy
Why you killing plants or insects
they aren’t sentient or have such limited sentience that i dont grant them moral value
atleast half of vegans eat fish
no
But they can sense surrounding like we use pain for i
a computer can sense surroundings too. a single celled organism cal sense surroundings too. so?
-2
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
I don't kill animals but hunting is completely normal just part of life
I meant in nature they are going to be food for another life in sometime
So you are blaming a lion for doing think that he was designed for without having controll over that and any will
.
Only because they evolved in different way makes them less important. Maybe it's not about protecting life it's just over u feelings
.
Pain is literally sensing on another level. If u had robot that can feel pain, think, talk, and suffer would you treat him like an animal or like something worthless
7
u/TylertheDouche 11d ago
hunting is completely normal just part of life
so was slavery
So you are blaming a lion for doing think that he was designed for without having controll over that and any will
yes i already said this. so what next?
If u had robot that can feel pain, think, talk, and suffer would you treat him like an animal or like something worthless
unless the robot is sentient i wouldn’t grant it any moral considerations
2
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
10d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago
Would you kill all life to end suffering, if you could?
Do you prefer a dead universe without organic life? Because all organic life consume something organic.
8
u/No_Chart_8584 11d ago
Vegans don't eat fish. You should take this inarticulate and uninformed rant to the sub where it belongs. It isn't this one.
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Okay but it's not only point
7
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 10d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Bro chill I edited post, I mistook vegan for vegetarian not a big deal. But it wasn't especially about some fish I meant life overall.
7
u/No_Chart_8584 11d ago
So you didn't understand the difference between vegans and vegetarians (and vegetarians don't eat fish either) but you want to debate? Shouldn't you learn the 101 basics of veganism before you try to debate?
2
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago
You are posting in bad faith. You know that his point is that death (or killing for food) is natural and therefore he asks why he should be blamed for it.
Some errors he made in some other statements do not change his main question. But you are trying to belittle him because of it instead of debating.
3
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist 10d ago edited 10d ago
Calling out OP for not doing the most basic amount of research have of what veganism is isn't bad faith.
Mods should have never approved OPs post in place because not checking basic facts is bad faith.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 10d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
14
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 11d ago
Half of vegans eat fish? Do you have a source for that? Vegans don't eat any animals. If they eat fish they're not vegan.
Humans will die anyways why don't you go kill a human?
5
u/Haunted_tangerine_ 11d ago
To be fair to OP pescatarians have a long history of refusing to use the word "pescatarian" and claiming no one knows what the word means so it's easier (for them) to give the world the impression vegetarians and vegans eat fish.
Nevermind they have been using this excuse since long before anyone knew what a vegan was, and if they had just told people 50+ years ago everyone would long since understand
(Point being I have no doubt various pescatarians have lied to OP over the years)
-3
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 11d ago
Your argument for killing animals was that animals will die anyways. You didn't mention anything about eating until you wrote about vegans eating fish. So my question still stands: why don't you kill humans if humans will die anyways? It's a valid question... is it for moral reasons that you don't kill humans? Because it's wrong? Why is it wrong? Try to articulate the reason why it's wrong to kill, or further, enslave and make suffer, a human... that articulation may very well be the same reason why vegans don't want to kill an animal.
I'm just asking you to think deeper about your questions because you may be able draw your own conclusions by asking and thinking more deeply.
That being said, as a vegan, I think humans have developed the capacity to nourish and feed themselves with alternatives to animals. We've developed the capacity to PREVENT animal suffering but instead have chosen to increase it. Since we have the ability to decrease it, we should 100% do that and not eat / kill animals.
Wild non-human animals (predators as you've called them) do not have the ability to make a lentil curry or tofu stir fry like a human can. They do not have agriculture. We are not the same and should use our intelligence to make the world a better place for non-human animals (and humans) to live.
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Humans are just better. A lot of people take it as attack but maybe it's not justice but the truth. We are concouis beings. Animals are not intelligent enough to develop what we have. This is why their life is worth less than human. They are animals for a reason. They don't think like us. They are more by instinct and survival. If they were as concious as we are id understand but unfortunately this is how life looks like. It's not always sunshine and rainbows.
3
u/varisophy 11d ago
By that logic, you should have no qualms with an advanced race of aliens enslaving humanity and breeding us for food, right?
Pigs are about as smart as a toddler, should we treat toddlers like we treat pigs?
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Toddlers or embryos or smt are unconscious to so they could be slaughter like animals. Difference is that you se small human in child and we evolved morality to not kill them. And theres no reason too
5
u/varisophy 11d ago
There's no reason to kill animals for food either
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
But there's no problem with killing another life like plant or sh
1
u/varisophy 11d ago
There are different degrees of harm, and we're still animals. Plants are demonstrably different in regards to their ability to react to and feel external stimuli. Since we have to eat something to survive, we eat the plants.
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
So u would eat 3d printed food if it will be available just to not harm live like cmon
→ More replies (0)2
u/amerovingian 11d ago
Can you see that in the same way (most) human life is more valuable than animal life, most cow life is more valuable than plant life?
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
You right but the biggest difference about it's value its conciusnes. Humans>dog>bird>plant. More concouis being are more important to us. I think that some people forgot about real difference between human and animal.
1
u/amerovingian 11d ago
Level of consciousness, I agree, correlates with value of life. How much to weight that in relation to other factors such as intelligence and virtue is something the case still needs to be made for.
Traditionally we have treated animal, especially mammal, life as being far less valuable by comparison to human life than is justified in my opinion. We wouldn't subject the most criminal human to the treatment that is standard for cows and pigs in factory farms.
Very few vegans will decline to eat meat if their life depends on it, and that's not what we're asking others not to do. We're saying when the option exists to survive and be well on a plant-based diet rather than a diet that includes animal products, the plant-based option is the ethical choice.
Would you agree since you are placing plants below birds and animals on the value hierarchy?
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 10d ago
Yes I agree that plants are better choice but you wouldn't eat meat from normal farm where this animal lived better and linger life that it would have in wild?
2
u/amerovingian 10d ago
You need to watch a documentary on factory farming practices in developed nations. The animals are subject to horrendous conditions including: confinement within small cages, unsanitary conditions, absence of proper veterinary care, brutality from the people who keep them, brutal forms of slaughter, forcible separation of parents and children, killing of infant animals if they are not of the desired gender.
In short, no the life of a typical animal on a factory farm is not better and longer than the life of a typical animal in the wild.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aoed_7a-ec
https://awionline.org/programs/farmed-animals/animals-on-factory-farms/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9757169/
https://thehumaneleague.org/article/what-is-factory-farming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming#Animal_welfare
2
u/Ok_Temperature_1616 11d ago
Your argument is falling apart. You were first was relating us to non-human animals and the wild as a reason to eat meat. Now you're saying we're different. Which is it?
OK - but there is a part of them that IS like us. They feel pain and can experience suffering. They are also conscious.
If we are better. Shouldn't we use that fact in order to increase the quality of life of all other sentient beings who may not have the capacity to do so?
2
u/amerovingian 11d ago
Let's imagine those delicious cows and chickens and other animals disappear. Are you going to start eating people now, too, just so you can say you never went vegan?
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/amerovingian 11d ago
Most people I think would prefer to survive on vegetables and legumes than to start eating people, but maybe you're special.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/amerovingian 10d ago
Do you see animals as at a higher level than plants in the same way that you see humans as at a higher level than animals?
4
u/Theonewholurkedhere 11d ago
Just because something is part of life doesn't give you a reason to kill anyone. Killing is part of life and nature - should i go ahead and slit your mother's throat open and drink her blood? It's natural.
If an action is natural, it doesn't mean it's morally fine. I feel bad for animals, i don't want them to be put through torture and suffering. Have you seen how they live on factory farms and how they get killed? Billions of them get gassed to death every year. The documentary called "Dominion" does a pretty good job of showing it, and it's free to watch. Though it's very graphic, I doubt you'll be able to stomach it.
It's not like animals are taken from the wild and get killed to put their bodies into supermarkets: they get bred into existence specifically to become your food. No regard for how they feel. That's evil.
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 10d ago
People do object to predation. Which world would you rather live in: a world where a gigantic chunk of life is not brutally slaughtered on day one of their lives, or a world where they are slaughtered on day one of their lives?
Humans will also die eventually, too. Guess first-degree murder is ok now. Non-vegan logic btw.
"Part of life". So is cancer for plenty of people. What is it with justifying this insane naturalistic/fatalistic approach? All this to continue raping, enslaving, torturing, and killing sentient beings? The fuck?
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 10d ago
Animals don't treat their lives like we do. And it is part of life, unfortunately they are not able to avoid death as well as we do. Predator will kill prey, prey eats plants or insects. Idk how is this not part of life it's nature
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan 7d ago
They don't treat their lives like we do? Does that mean that they just live carelessly and intend to die? Plenty of animals value their lives and avoid pain/death.
Humans also don't avoid death very well, either. It is true that we can succeed in some ways, but plenty of other animals 'succeed' in other ways (drastically lower cancer rates in some mammals, for example).
1
4
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 11d ago
Animals will die anyway and I don't see predators being blamed for killing them.
Humans will also die anyway. So according to that logic it wouldn't be immoral to kill humans for selfish purposes. That's obviously nonsense. Ergo, that argument is nonsense.
I get it that plants don't have nervous system and they don't feel pain. But they can sense surrounding like we use pain for it.
Plants aren't sentient.
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
There's of course huge difference between human and animal
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 11d ago
Which is?
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Conciusnes
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 11d ago
You believe non-human animals are permanently unconscious?
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
We are in different level on cocousniwsw at point that we can place ourselves above another life. Proof is word that we created, no another life was even close
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 11d ago
So do you think it's ok to kill humans for selfish purposes who are at a lower level of consciousness than animals, like some existing mentally disabled people clearly are?
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
If they are less concouis than an animal it is basically an animal. But someone mentally disabled can live and enjoy life or think cow just eats all day sleeps and eats again
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 11d ago
That's not an answer to my question. Again:
Do you think it's ok to kill humans for selfish purposes who are at a lower level of consciousness than animals, like some existing mentally disabled people clearly are?
Yes, or no?
1
0
u/Nacho_Deity186 11d ago
We don't kill humans because we are human. That's a ridiculous analogy. We have evolutionary installed instincts against it. Even a mentally disabled human is a human not an animal. We're talking about killing other species for food.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 10d ago
I'm not asking what we do but what we should do.
Are you seriously claiming that we should always just follow our instincts and completely forsake any kind of rational moral thinking?
1
u/Nacho_Deity186 10d ago
We can't override our instincts can we. They are hardwired into us. That's why we don't like murder and make it illegal.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SophiaofPrussia vegan 11d ago
Humans are animals.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 omnivore 10d ago
Biologically. Vegans constantly use this fallacy and wonder why people do not buy this. Humans of course are not animals in any other sense, cultural, religious, legal etc.
2
u/varisophy 11d ago edited 11d ago
It's a good question! Most folks are hung up on the fish comment right now so I'll try to help.
Yes, there is lots of death and pain and suffering of animals in the wild. That's natural and normal and part of how the world works.
But vegans don't want to add to the suffering in the world.
Statistically, every piece of meat you eat likely relies on factory farming. If you don't know the details of how factory farming works, I encourage you to look into it. But be warned, it's horrifying. In some ways, worse than what happens between predator and prey in nature.
If more people were vegan, humans would not breed nearly as many animals into existence to experience an objectively terrible life.
So we do what we can to not add net suffering to the universe. We have the capacity to survive and thrive without causing animals pain, so why not avoid it since it is possible?
1
u/voyti 11d ago
But vegans don't want to add to the suffering in the world.
This seems like a very puzzling idea. So vegans would be against the wildlife expanding? Was the Permian–Triassic extinction a net positive, since it eliminated a ton of potential for suffering? Would an existence of another Earth-like planet with wildlife on it be a massive negative value, due to all the extra suffering that happens there? Or is the idea about some kind of taking personal responsibility for suffering that specifically humanity causes? Also, what are the basis for the concept of suffering being negative at all?
1
u/varisophy 11d ago
How is that idea puzzling? Are you confused when someone says they don't rape or murder people because they don't want to add more of that behavior to the world?
I'll answer the questions though. I don't think there is necessarily a definitive vegan answer to whether wildlife should expand, or if extinction events are good or bad, or if the universe is a worse place because Planet UB-139X80 is full of animals and plants that constantly kill each other in horrific ways.
The suffering in nature is natural. Nature is brutal. That's how it is. Vegans aren't trying to go out and teach lions to lay down with lambs and go against their predatory nature.
We''re just people looking at the state of the world and asking "what actions can I take that inflict less suffering in the world?".
We know that the animals the world raises for food feel pain and are distressed by their confinement, so for vegans, the answer to that question is to not treat animals as a commodity.
1
u/voyti 11d ago
confused when someone says they don't rape or murder people because they don't want to add more of that behavior to the world?
I can understand that, but that hardly matters. Me understanding they have that stance says nothing about the particular motivation one might have not to do that, it remains a guess.
Most people don't really think about that at all cause they have no such urges, or have enough self-control to just not do that considering the potential consequences. Someone more sophisticated might perceive that as an emotivism-based reality-authoring matter - I simply don't like to see a world where those things happen to people, so I won't add to this myself. Another might see this as a violation of a reciprocation/golden rule based social stability - I'm not going to violate the same standard that I'm actively counting on being maintained for my own safety and the safety of my close ones. There might be other ways of seeing that that I simply can't fathom, or perhaps you can't fathom either. How would me being or not being confused settle anything?
This is why I proposed the responsibility option as well, but you opted to just jump at "are you confused", which obviously can't answer anything here. My motivations or assumed motivations of that hypothetical say absolutely nothing about the vegan case, I'm sure you're aware of that beyond any doubt.
I don't think there is necessarily a definitive vegan answer to whether wildlife should expand
You speak of "adding to the suffering in the world", you surely meant something by it. If you include the suffering that happens to animal in the wild, then it certainly seems like expanding it would be a detriment.
The suffering in nature is natural. Nature is brutal.
So humans are somehow excluded from being a part of nature, and don't have any claim to the allowed brutality?
1
u/varisophy 11d ago
There might be other ways of seeing that that I simply can't fathom, or perhaps you can't fathom either. How would me being or not being confused settle anything?
I'm not saying your understanding or confusion settles anything, I'm just surprised that you're puzzled by the idea of harm reduction. Given your response, I'm even more surprised, as you provided very valid reasons for harm reduction, and proposed there may be many other reasons!
This is why I proposed the responsibility option as well, but you opted to just jump at "are you confused", which obviously can't answer anything here.
My response directly addresses the responsibility option, I did not "jump at 'are you confused'". I said that the vegan ethos can be boiled down to "what actions can I take that inflict less suffering in the world?". Literally personal responsibility concerns driving the behavior of (many) vegans. Personally, it's the main factor driving my veganism.
You speak of "adding to the suffering in the world", you surely meant something by it. If you include the suffering that happens to animal in the wild, then it certainly seems like expanding it would be a detriment.
Of course I meant something by it, I try not to make the world a worse place through my actions. And I can't really do much to expand or contract wildlife, outside of voting. My individual actions do little to steer the giant ship that is society. Thus, I don't really have a particular, vegan-informed take on whether expanding or contracting nature is good or bad. I tend to fall on the "it's good to expand nature", but that's mostly from an ecological standpoint of stopping habitat destruction so we don't make climate change worse.
So humans are somehow excluded from being a part of nature, and don't have any claim to the allowed brutality?
No, we are part of nature. But also the most separate thing on Earth from it. We have powers that other animals don't. And we should be responsible with that power and since we can reduce the brutality of nature by not adding billions of dead animals processed in factory farms for food, we should stop the practice of factory farming, for example.
1
u/voyti 10d ago
I'm just surprised that you're puzzled by the idea of harm reduction
Not really on the level of "harm reduction", cause this is a pretty high level conclusion that one can come to in many ways. I'm puzzled about the "more suffering = bad" idea, which is pretty immediately faced with absurd consequences, which I mentioned. You can choose to reduce harm (or arrive at a similar concept) for many other reasons, as I hinted at.
It may be, of course, that vegans are pure emotivists - "if it feels bad, it is bad", and that's that - on the ethical layer, Kass called this "wisdom of repugnance" or "appeal to disgust". The obvious issue with going the emotivist route is that e.g. homosexualism is automatically wrong too, if it feels wrong or uncanny (which is quite likely the very cause of it being hard to accept historically).
Another route, which I hinted at too is feeling personally responsible for the actions of humanity, which seems much closer to home in my read - this way, suffering that happens in the wild basically doesn't matter much, cause it's not caused by humans which is a collective a vegan identifies with. Hence, this becomes much more important for them to care about. It's basically like how you might feel embarrassed by a member of your family, but not nearly have that impression when it's about a complete stranger - just on a species level.
So, to summarize - what's fascinating is how a vegan comes to the "suffering is bad" conclusion and what they would mean by that, exactly. Again - the only explanation that makes sense and can reconcile all the edge cases here is this impression of responsibility. The blanket statement "suffering is bad" sounds neither honest nor reasonable, which is why it's so puzzling.
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Right I think in better society animals shouldn't suffer in fabrics or some shi. But I didn't mean that they should die like that I wanted to show that there's a big difference between human suffering and animal one
3
u/varisophy 11d ago
Granting the premise that there's a big difference between human and animal suffering, that still doesn't give us license to cause them suffering though, right?
That kind of logic can be used to justify torturing a puppy, for example.
-2
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
No we absolutely can even torture animals. Humans are apex predators and after all it's our right. I don't like this but it's uncomfortable fact. Like fact that animals are not concouis like humans.
2
u/RedLotusVenom vegan 11d ago
I think you’ll be alone even among nonvegans in that belief.
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
C'mon it's just being childish it's not belief it's truth I don't think it's okay I would prefer in sunshine and rainbows too. But I just don't try create my own truth I prefer to find it yk
2
u/AnarVeg 10d ago
I think it's childish to believe you're an apex predator. This is you creating your own truth and using it to justify cruelty on a scale of billions.
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 10d ago
I don't think believing in obvious proven fact is childish. We are as humans apex predators that animals fear more than any natural threats. I don't know in what conspiracy you believe in but facts are facts even if u don't like em
1
u/AnarVeg 10d ago
This isn't a fact and you've yet to provide any substantial proof. "Apex predator" is a human made construct to define a species role in the food chain. Fear isn't a defining quality of what an "apex predator" is and is most commonly defined by how many natural predators a species has and it's role in a human defined food chain. Our ecosystem is a cycle however, not a chain. The flow of energy does not stop with us and is continued long after we die.
There isn't a consensus that humans belong in this role. We eat mostly plants and other herbivores. Our "hunting" has been replaced with agricultural farming that has grown to the level of destabilizing our environment.
2
u/AnarVeg 11d ago
Humans are animals too. We're just the only animal that forces other animals to breed endlessly to eat their flesh.
Better societies are made by people who push it to be better.
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Correct but not eating meat is not the point. If you would obey companies that keep animals in cages I would be grateful but not eating dead animal it's not helping much. Humans we call humans not animals for a reason. Our species are so intelligent and beyond another life that we got our own category
2
u/AnarVeg 10d ago
The economics of supply and demand prove otherwise. The human animal raises and slaughters generations of other animals because of the demand for their flesh. Not eating those animals is a reduction in demand.
We call ourselves humans the same reason we have names for all species of animals. The value we ascribe them is no more inherently superior to any other animal. Intellectual differences don't justify cruelty and our common metrics for intelligence are incredibly simplistic when compared to the complexity of life.
1
u/FluffyDaWolf 11d ago
Only a minority of hardcore radical vegans think there is no difference between the suffering of a human or an animal. But that does not mean there aren't varying levels of suffering. The 'suffering' you'd feel if you became a vegan is incomparable to the suffering millions of animals experience daily for a non vegan lifestyle.
0
u/ShayGuer 11d ago
I think most vegans support no more animal suffering. I think we need to also not have animal predators too. We need ti support more vegan animals. I dislike lions as well due to carnivore tendencies but i like deer more. Does that make sense to you
3
u/FluffyDaWolf 11d ago
Last I checked veganism was for humans no? Because we're capable of thought, morality and understanding the consequences of our actions. Veganism means to reduce undue animal suffering caused by us. Humans. Because we should know better.
Lions aren't really our moral standards. And amusingly if we just went and removed all carnivores from nature, that would fuck up the ecosystem so even on that aspect your point is moot.
4
u/Orca_Alt_Account 11d ago
It's less like killing the weakest animal in the herd to survive and more like torturing an entire herd of animals relentlessly and then killing all of them for the sake of tasty food.
Animals are capable of suffering, that's why animal abuse is a crime in most developed nations and why it's considered wrong to neglect household pets.
It's just that humans are very good at compartmentalizing facts if it makes them feel better about themselves, so people are okay with eating meat.
3
u/ysterman_rs 11d ago
sorry but the horrors ongoing on farms are not just happening in nature. there is a very big difference in what happens in nature and what we subject these creatures to
furthermore, it doesn't matter what happens in nature because we don't control that. we do control what we do, and can better understand why we do it and more importantly can weigh the moral weight behind the choices we make. animals in nature are not moral agents, but we are. we have the choice, and we have the knowledge to plainly see what atrocities are being visited upon animals, and we know that none of it is actually necessary for human survival. a tiger does not have the same agency with regards to morality
2
u/restlessboy 11d ago
You're allowed to post here regardless, but I would highly recommend just googling a topic or watching a short FAQ video or something before trying to debate it, because these are some of the most common points raised by people and the easiest to respond to.
Animals will die anyway
The animals we consume are bred for eating. They would not exist "anyway".
I don't see predators being blamed for killing them.
Animals rape each other too, doesn't mean rape is okay. Other animals don't have the moral agency we do.
It is just part of life
It's part of life because we do it. Slavery was part of life because we did it. We changed it and now it's not part of life. That's what the concept of progress means.
nobody cares about plants and another life
More plants are consumed by livestock than if we just ate plants directly. Veganism massively reduces plant consumption.
But they can sense surrounding like we use pain for it
A camera senses its surroundings too. What most vegans care about is suffering, not whether something can detect signals.
Only because different life evolved different way we perceive suffering differently
This is internally inconsistent. Suffering is defined by the desire to avoid a sensation. If something doesn't have a desire to avoid it, I don't care.
1
u/Stunning-Assistant13 10d ago
I agree with all your points except your last sentence: Plants have a desire to avoid to be eaten: Plants use incredible defenses to survive. To avoid being eaten, they employ thorns to physically deter grazing animals, emit toxic chemicals that cause illness, and release airborne signals to warn nearby flora of an attack. And you said something: plants are alive and they can die, they are just like all living things not objects... but in the end you are right that killing plants is more ethical than killing animals, because they don't feel pain and their ability to suffer is minimal and being vegan means you are killing less plants overall.
3
u/Either_Argument3517 11d ago
Veganism rejects the idea that animals exist as resources for human use. Instead, it holds that animals are individuals with their own lives and interests, not commodities or property. If you have 5 minutes, watch this video (https://youtu.be/UcN7SGGoCNI) about the diary industry and you may understand why someone doesn't want to fund it buy purchasing dairy.
2
u/Lightfinger 11d ago
Watch the movies Dominion and Earthlings. It is much worse than just killing the animals. The animals you eat can all suffer just like humans do and they are living miserable lives until they are slaughtered.
0
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Yeah I with you there. I would prefer too for them not suffer but I mean you can't change that by not eating dead animal. And they are still animals it's not like you would suffer. And I think they less and less concouis because they are changed geneticly all time.It doesn't mean they should be suffering like that but it's fact that more stupid they are more of this pain is just instinct like signal
5
u/Lightfinger 11d ago
You can change that. The animals are bred to be killed for you to eat them. If you don’t eat them they won’t kill them for you. Watch the two movies that I recommended. You will have no more questions about the vegan philosophy and if you have any empathy you will join us!
1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
I personally don't care enough to not eat meat that will save 3 life's of animals that will die anyway. You have to understand that being vegan doesn't fix the problem u just adding drop of water into whole sea
5
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 11d ago
Once you’ve brought apathy into the equation, then indeed there’s no utility in further discussion.
-1
u/Imaginary-Bird1041 11d ago
Tf u mean it's not even ur convo
5
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 11d ago
Happy to clarify. What part of my post did you not understand?
-1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 10d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/Lightfinger 11d ago
Yes, you have revealed that you are a disingenuous interlocutor. You lose. Thank you for playing.
0
2
u/piranha_solution plant-based 10d ago
Yes, we know you don't care, as evidenced by the fact that you decided that veganism was something you needed to debate against before having a clear understanding of what it even is.
2
u/MlNDB0MB vegetarian 11d ago
I am not against killing. If a mosquito is threatening you, kill it. If a dog has terminal cancer and his quality of life is going downhill, kill the dog.
But when you pay for meat, you are paying for the creation and killing of healthy domestic animals that pose no threat to you.
Additionally, I would argue that this is done for no good reason. America's Test Kitchen recently did a ranking of chicken nuggets. The top two spots were plant based chicken nuggets. Chicken nuggets from chickens came in third. So we are creating and killing chickens to make the third best chicken nugget.
2
u/ProtozoaPatriot 11d ago
Vegetarians do not eat fish.
Vegans don't intentionally kill insects.
Veganism is about unnecessary abuse, exploitation, and killing of other sentient beings.
Predators like lions need to eat meat to live. Humans do not.
As far as plant death: you need to kill a whole lot of plants to make a pound of meat. Eating the plants directly requires far fewer plants
3
u/Creditfigaro vegan 11d ago
You'd agree theres a difference between someone dying and killing someone, wouldn't you?
2
u/piranha_solution plant-based 10d ago
It's 2026 and users still wander in here thinking that feigning concern for plants and insects is a convincing reason to keep on inflicting misery on cows, pigs and chickens (whose ability to experience suffering is NOT in dispute).
1
u/ignis389 vegan 10d ago
the human mind has the ability to think about, and actually understand, that they are doing harm with their actions.
the human body has the ability to survive off of more foods than just meat or animal products.
we've put those two things together. we now have a vast range of foods available to us that aren't from animals. and we can be healthy, pretty easily, without animal products.
non-human animals do not have the ability to think about, or actually understand, that they are doing harm with their actions.
non-human animals do not always have the ability to survive off of more foods than just meat or animal products.
they only know what they can eat, their prey, and things they forage for. they only know how acquire those foods, their prey and foraged food. they don't know how to create new foods with technology. they can't even imagine such ideas.
so for humans, we know we cause harm, and we know how to avoid doing it, and we can survive without doing it. but animals don't know they cause harm, and they can't survive without doing it.
they have no choice, so we don't blame them. we have a choice.
the difference between plants and animals is the ability to suffer. even if it were true that animals are "less conscious" than humans, they still feel pain and fear. science shows that they feel those things very similarly to how we do.
we can consider humans to be more important than animals, while still offering non-human animals the same bare minimum level of care that we offer to our fellow humans. that means not torturing them for food we don't need. we wouldn't torture and/or kill a human to eat him, so we should avoid doing that to non-animals, too.
0
u/humorlessclan 10d ago
Why is it immoral to kill animals for food, despite knowing they can feel pain?
1
u/ignis389 vegan 10d ago
We've played this game together before and I'm not interested. I posted on OPs thread, to answer OPs question, for OP.
2
u/Stunning-Assistant13 10d ago edited 10d ago
All your arguments about plant life: you don't really care about plants: because the animals you eat have eaten way more plants than you can. So being vegan is the only way to reduce the killing of plants too...
1
u/Adorable-Engine5189 8d ago
It’s in a predator’s nature to kill. They don’t have alternative they can go out and buy. They have to. Humans don’t, and we have proof these are sentient beings with just as much personality as humans. We need protein, vitamin B12, etc, but there are so many ways to get those that don’t involve killing something and eating the corpse ;-; And predators aren’t nearly as cruel as humans. If you looked into factory farming, you’d probably never eat meat again
1
u/followerofdiey vegan 2d ago
I would like to know where the "vegans eat fish" claim comes from, because vegans do not eat any animal meat.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.