I completely understand your reasoning for opposing the meat industry, but I saw one argument that I’m curious what ethical vegans would think about:
What if there is an animal product that has already been harvested, is it unethical to then utilize it? Like, stealing meat(which would actually hurt the meat industry), or being at an event where there are meat dishes that would otherwise go to waste. Those forms of consumption aren’t supporting the slaughter of the animals.
“Utilize” implies that animals are a resource for consumption instead of living things with their own right to live. As another comment pointed out we don’t “utilize” humans after they have been murdered. A goal of veganism is to stop factory farming but it is not what veganism is. If you consider all animals as having a right to life you then wouldn’t consider their bodies as resources after they were murdered but instead as victims.
As another comment pointed out we don’t “utilize” humans after they have been murdered.
Yes we do. Medical cadavers, organ donation, are the two most obvious ways.
If you consider all animals as having a right to life you then wouldn’t consider their bodies as resources after they were murdered but instead as victims.
I care about my own life, but not my lifeless body once I did.
Medical cadavers and organ donors are, first of all, volunteers not raised for that purpose, and second of all, we do not view them as commodities. There are rituals of respect when working with medical cadavers. I have heard of the families of organ donors visiting the recipients in emotional meetings.
If you consider all animals as having a right to life you then wouldn’t consider their bodies as resources after they were murdered but instead as victims.
This is a nonsensical statement that contradicts itself. If all animals have a right to life, then you wouldn’t see any issue with a lion murdering a gazelle and then feasting on the victim’s body. Alternatively, if you condemn carnivorous animals as murderers, you don’t consider carnivores to have a right to life.
Even if we consider this only applies to humans – what about our pets? Cats are obligate carnivores. How can we feed our pet cats without being complicit in murder and feeding our cats the bodies?
To prevent the reproduction of those who rely on murder. If a person had a genetic disorder where they needed a human heart transplant every year to live do you think they should get it? And even if they do, should they reproduce?
I didn’t realize transplants only came from killing people, your totally applicable and thoughtful analogy has me rethinking my life choices now.
Here’s a thought experiment for you: if you were on an island, with only the vegan section of a grocery store to eat for survival, would you eat the vegan food?
Not for cats. There’s a market for vegan cat food, but vets say it doesn’t give them the full nutrition they need.
On top of that, I’m always skeptical of vegan foods that are able to meet more comprehensive nutritional profiles. Not their safety or anything, but if they’re truly vegan. We can’t just synthesize nutrients from chemicals, not en masse. Maybe in a few decades, but for now, those nutrients require incredibly expensive equipment to make from scratch.
Most of the time, the nutrient is extracted, purified, and concentrated from its usual source. Nutrients only found from meat would then need to be extracted from meat, which technically wouldn’t be vegan. I think there’s some nutrients that we’re able to engineer bacteria to produce, which is certainly better from a vegan perspective. Although it begs the question of what vegan ethics around bioengineering bacteria are.
I have to get to work after this, this might be my last response today
not for cats
I gave it a quick google, and while there aren't many actual studies, the few recent ones I saw seemed to indicate it works fine for cats. Here are three abstracts (click on this sentence to uncollapse them):
Increasing concerns about environmental sustainability, farmed animal welfare and competition for traditional protein sources, are driving considerable development of alternative pet foods. These include raw meat diets, in vitro meat products, and diets based on novel protein sources including terrestrial plants, insects, yeast, fungi and potentially seaweed. To study health outcomes in cats fed vegan diets compared to those fed meat, we surveyed 1,418 cat guardians, asking about one cat living with them, for at least one year. Among 1,380 respondents involved in cat diet decision-making, health and nutrition was the factor considered most important. 1,369 respondents provided information relating to a single cat fed a meat-based (1,242–91%) or vegan (127–9%) diet for at least a year. We examined seven general indicators of illness. After controlling for age, sex, neutering status and primary location via regression models, the following risk reductions were associated with a vegan diet for average cats: increased veterinary visits– 7.3% reduction, medication use– 14.9% reduction, progression onto therapeutic diet– 54.7% reduction, reported veterinary assessment of being unwell– 3.6% reduction, reported veterinary assessment of more severe illness– 7.6% reduction, guardian opinion of more severe illness– 22.8% reduction. Additionally, the number of health disorders per unwell cat decreased by 15.5%. No reductions were statistically significant. We also examined the prevalence of 22 specific health disorders, using reported veterinary assessments. Forty two percent of cats fed meat, and 37% of those fed vegan diets suffered from at least one disorder. Of these 22 disorders, 15 were most common in cats fed meat, and seven in cats fed vegan diets. Only one difference was statistically significant. Considering these results overall, cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets. This trend was clear and consistent. These results largely concur with previous, similar studies.
There has been an increase in vegetarianism and veganism in human populations. This trend also appears to be occurring in companion animals, with guardians preferring to feed their animals in accordance with their own dietary values and choices. However, there has been controversy amongst vets and online commentators about the safety of feeding vegan diets to carnivorous species, such as cats and dogs. In spite of this controversy, to date there has been no systematic evaluation of the evidence on this topic. A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed, identifying 16 studies on the impact of vegan diets on cat and dog health. Studies were appraised for quality using established critical appraisal tools or reporting guidelines. There was considerable heterogeneity in the outcomes measured, and study designs employed, with few studies evaluating key outcomes of interest. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was utilized for assessment of certainty in the evidence, with the evidence for most outcomes being assessed as low or very low. Whilst the quality and amount of evidence needs to be considered in formulating recommendations, there was no overwhelming evidence of adverse effects arising from use of these diets and there was some evidence of benefits. It is, however, recommended that future high-quality studies, with standardized outcome measures and large sample sizes, be conducted. At the current time, if guardians wish to feed their companion animals vegan diets, a cautious approach should be taken using commercially produced diets which have been formulated considering the nutritional needs of the target species.
Cats, being obligate carnivores, have unique dietary requirements for nutrients most commonly found in dietary ingredients of animal origin. As such, feeding a diet devoid of animal-derived ingredients has been postulated as a possible cause of nutrient imbalances and adverse health outcomes. A small proportion of cat owners feed strictly plant-based diets to the cats in their care, yet the health and wellness of cats fed these diets has not been well documented.
Results
A total of 1325 questionnaires were complete enough for inclusion. The only exclusion criterion was failure to answer all questions. Most cats, 65% (667/1026), represented in the survey were fed a meat-based diet and 18.2% (187/1026) were fed a plant-based diet, with the rest fed either a combination of plant-based with meat-based (69/1026, 6.7%) or indeterminable (103/1026, 10%). Cat age ranged from 4 months to 23 years, with a median of 7 years, and was not associated with diet type. No differences in reported lifespan were detected between diet types. Fewer cats fed plant-based diets reported to have gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. Cats fed plant-based diets were reported to have more ideal body condition scores than cats fed a meat-based diet. More owners of cats fed plant-based diets reported their cat to be in very good health.
Most of the time, the nutrient is extracted, purified, and concentrated from its usual source [meat].
Do you have a source that this is true for vegan food? Also, is this actually necessary to meet nutritional needs?
I think there’s some nutrients that we’re able to engineer bacteria to produce, which is certainly better from a vegan perspective.
I’m not aware of any nutrients that bacteria, yeast, or other cell cultures cannot be engineered to produce, but I could be wrong
Although it begs the question of what vegan ethics around bioengineering bacteria are.
I’m not sure what the angle is here. Microbes are no more sentient than plants.
I’ll have to look at those articles, thanks. It might be that they’ve more recently found formulations that work well as full substitutes. At the very least, it warrants long term study with vets regularly checking vitals and levels.
I don’t know if the extraction is necessarily true for vegan foods, that’s why I’m rather uncertain about their validity. It seems like bioreactors and bacteria might be the vegan way of making them, which is sensible. I’m just not sure that they’d actually use that for vegan pet food, but it’s something for me to check later.
And I didn’t mean to take a dig at you with that last line of mine about ethics, sorry about that. I’m not a vegan but I personally think it slippery to define what life is okay to consume and what life isn’t. It continues to surprise me what we learn about plants. That said, a plant is a far cry from bacteria, so I see your point.
There are social and intrapersonal reasons to avoid eating meat even if doing so doesn’t lead directly to more animals being slaughtered. It is still treating the dead bodies of animals as a commodity, something we don’t do to the bodies of dead humans. And it will take a cultural shift in how we see animals in order to end their oppression.
And the issue of eating “wasted” (weird way to talk about it as a vegan) meat is more concrete when you are eating meat at a function or the leftovers of a friend. The next function is going to have just as much meat if not more because it all got eaten. Your friend isn’t going to think about reducing their meat consumption because they were left with too much, they might even get more satisfaction from you eating it because of pity. People who regularly consume animal products often think going without them must be suffering.
I don’t agree with freegans, though I also don’t really care what they do. As long as they understand there is a clear distinction between something like dumpster diving and a potluck.
So, I’ve seen this argument before. That humans should never eat meat because we have other options, but it’s ok for animals. Given the opportunity, herbivores will eat meat on occasion. In your opinion, does that mean that humans are morally superior to every other thing on the face of the planet?
Yeah their argument breaks down very quickly. If humans are uniquely responsible for consuming meat but carnivorous animals aren’t, then there’s something special about humans which differentiates us from the carnivorous animals. And if we acknowledge that, that brings up a whole new host of questions. Is it wrong then for an enlightened species like us to give meat to our obligate carnivore pets?
Humans are moral agents, animals are not. The argument is that acknowledging we are different and have higher responsibilities is what obliges us to not eat animals when we don’t need to. The argument doesn’t break down at all, you nearly spelled it out yourself haha
Edit: didn’t realize you were the same person I responded to elsewhere in the thread, but I think this comment has more fleshed out info
I completely understand your reasoning for opposing the meat industry, but I saw one argument that I’m curious what ethical vegans would think about:
What if there is an animal product that has already been harvested, is it unethical to then utilize it? Like, stealing meat(which would actually hurt the meat industry), or being at an event where there are meat dishes that would otherwise go to waste. Those forms of consumption aren’t supporting the slaughter of the animals.
“Utilize” implies that animals are a resource for consumption instead of living things with their own right to live. As another comment pointed out we don’t “utilize” humans after they have been murdered. A goal of veganism is to stop factory farming but it is not what veganism is. If you consider all animals as having a right to life you then wouldn’t consider their bodies as resources after they were murdered but instead as victims.
Yes we do. Medical cadavers, organ donation, are the two most obvious ways.
I care about my own life, but not my lifeless body once I did.
Medical cadavers and organ donors are, first of all, volunteers not raised for that purpose, and second of all, we do not view them as commodities. There are rituals of respect when working with medical cadavers. I have heard of the families of organ donors visiting the recipients in emotional meetings.
Of course, but in the situation I gave. You aren’t the one doing that.
Yeah if you guys wanna “utilize” my corpse have at it. Being useful after death seems like a win to me.
This is a nonsensical statement that contradicts itself. If all animals have a right to life, then you wouldn’t see any issue with a lion murdering a gazelle and then feasting on the victim’s body. Alternatively, if you condemn carnivorous animals as murderers, you don’t consider carnivores to have a right to life.
Even if we consider this only applies to humans – what about our pets? Cats are obligate carnivores. How can we feed our pet cats without being complicit in murder and feeding our cats the bodies?
Lions have to eat meat to survive, humans don’t. Humans are also moral agents, animals are not.
Should we neuter lions then?
What part of my comment made you think I was arguing for that?
To prevent the reproduction of those who rely on murder. If a person had a genetic disorder where they needed a human heart transplant every year to live do you think they should get it? And even if they do, should they reproduce?
I didn’t realize transplants only came from killing people, your totally applicable and thoughtful analogy has me rethinking my life choices now.
Here’s a thought experiment for you: if you were on an island, with only the vegan section of a grocery store to eat for survival, would you eat the vegan food?
Can you explain your point a little more?
I’m pretty sure there are vegan pet foods with similar nutritional profiles
Not for cats. There’s a market for vegan cat food, but vets say it doesn’t give them the full nutrition they need.
On top of that, I’m always skeptical of vegan foods that are able to meet more comprehensive nutritional profiles. Not their safety or anything, but if they’re truly vegan. We can’t just synthesize nutrients from chemicals, not en masse. Maybe in a few decades, but for now, those nutrients require incredibly expensive equipment to make from scratch.
Most of the time, the nutrient is extracted, purified, and concentrated from its usual source. Nutrients only found from meat would then need to be extracted from meat, which technically wouldn’t be vegan. I think there’s some nutrients that we’re able to engineer bacteria to produce, which is certainly better from a vegan perspective. Although it begs the question of what vegan ethics around bioengineering bacteria are.
I have to get to work after this, this might be my last response today
I gave it a quick google, and while there aren't many actual studies, the few recent ones I saw seemed to indicate it works fine for cats. Here are three abstracts (click on this sentence to uncollapse them):
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284132 (Sep. 2023)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/ (Jan. 2023)
https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-021-02754-8
Do you have a source that this is true for vegan food? Also, is this actually necessary to meet nutritional needs?
I’m not aware of any nutrients that bacteria, yeast, or other cell cultures cannot be engineered to produce, but I could be wrong
I’m not sure what the angle is here. Microbes are no more sentient than plants.
I’ll have to look at those articles, thanks. It might be that they’ve more recently found formulations that work well as full substitutes. At the very least, it warrants long term study with vets regularly checking vitals and levels.
I don’t know if the extraction is necessarily true for vegan foods, that’s why I’m rather uncertain about their validity. It seems like bioreactors and bacteria might be the vegan way of making them, which is sensible. I’m just not sure that they’d actually use that for vegan pet food, but it’s something for me to check later.
And I didn’t mean to take a dig at you with that last line of mine about ethics, sorry about that. I’m not a vegan but I personally think it slippery to define what life is okay to consume and what life isn’t. It continues to surprise me what we learn about plants. That said, a plant is a far cry from bacteria, so I see your point.
I appreciate the conversation!
do all living things have a right to live?
Why would they not?
all is the keyword in that sentence.
Exactly, why do all animals not have an inherent right to live?
I didn’t say “animals”
There are social and intrapersonal reasons to avoid eating meat even if doing so doesn’t lead directly to more animals being slaughtered. It is still treating the dead bodies of animals as a commodity, something we don’t do to the bodies of dead humans. And it will take a cultural shift in how we see animals in order to end their oppression.
And the issue of eating “wasted” (weird way to talk about it as a vegan) meat is more concrete when you are eating meat at a function or the leftovers of a friend. The next function is going to have just as much meat if not more because it all got eaten. Your friend isn’t going to think about reducing their meat consumption because they were left with too much, they might even get more satisfaction from you eating it because of pity. People who regularly consume animal products often think going without them must be suffering.
I don’t agree with freegans, though I also don’t really care what they do. As long as they understand there is a clear distinction between something like dumpster diving and a potluck.
By definition, Vegans would not. People who would typically define themselves as “Freegan”.
Seeing other’s flesh as food is the problem…
Why? They’re dead
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
they’re not food…
So, I’ve seen this argument before. That humans should never eat meat because we have other options, but it’s ok for animals. Given the opportunity, herbivores will eat meat on occasion. In your opinion, does that mean that humans are morally superior to every other thing on the face of the planet?
Yes, we have moral agency, others do not.
Yeah their argument breaks down very quickly. If humans are uniquely responsible for consuming meat but carnivorous animals aren’t, then there’s something special about humans which differentiates us from the carnivorous animals. And if we acknowledge that, that brings up a whole new host of questions. Is it wrong then for an enlightened species like us to give meat to our obligate carnivore pets?
Humans are moral agents, animals are not. The argument is that acknowledging we are different and have higher responsibilities is what obliges us to not eat animals when we don’t need to. The argument doesn’t break down at all, you nearly spelled it out yourself haha
Edit: didn’t realize you were the same person I responded to elsewhere in the thread, but I think this comment has more fleshed out info