Philosophy Now Forum

I have posted here in Applied Ethics because veganism is exactly that, the application of ethics into everyday behaviours. Hopefully this is a good place for such a discussion.

I want to offer an explanation of ethical veganism. Ethical veganism is variously described as a philosophy and a lifestyle. I don't think it is particularly either, though of course people adopting veganism will choose to act in certain ways according to some guiding principles. However, as best I can tell, veganism is an idea. The idea is that we extend certain ethical principles of moral consideration to include other species.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes in 30 articles to formalise certain ethical principles into a set of "rights". These rights are declarations about how each human being deserves to be treated. These rights recognise the inherent value of each person regardless of background, status or beliefs.

The idea of veganism is that we owe a duty to other species to recognise their inherent value in a similar fashion whenever we can. As other species cannot participate in human civic society, it doesn't make sense to believe that most of our human rights may similarly apply to other species. However, three of them could. These are Articles 3-5.

Abstracting from those articles, I suggest that ethical veganism proposes that other species be treated as though they have these rights:

• The right to life and liberty (that is, to be in charge of their own lives and not to be exploited)

• The right not to be held in slavery or servitude (that is, not to be owned and used as a commodity)

• The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (that is, not to be harmed unnecessarily)

As human rights are often usefully protected in law, most people in modern societies respect these fundamental rights of other people. This is not the case for other animals. Because of this, ethical vegans are simply people who choose to behave as though these rights are protected in law.

That's it.

Conceiving of veganism in this way makes it very easy to work out what to do. It also means that how any individual wants to behave accordingly is, in the end, entirely up to them. But if they act in good faith, they will aim to treat other species very much as they treat other people in regard to these three fundamental rights. There may be empirical matters involved when working what's best to do. For example, is a particular species sentient such that we owe it this consideration? By and large, making these decisions will entail gathering knowledge about such matters and making appropriate choices.

It should be clear from this that there really is no such thing as a "vegan". Instead, all there can be are people whose choices and actions fall somewhere on a continuum from restricting such considerations to only humans to those who offer full consideration to other sentient species.

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 am I have posted here in Applied Ethics because veganism is exactly that, the application of ethics into everyday behaviours. Hopefully this is a good place for such a discussion.

I want to offer an explanation of ethical veganism. Ethical veganism is variously described as a philosophy and a lifestyle. I don't think it is particularly either, though of course people adopting veganism will choose to act in certain ways according to some guiding principles. However, as best I can tell, veganism is an idea. The idea is that we extend certain ethical principles of moral consideration to include other species.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes in 30 articles to formalise certain ethical principles into a set of "rights". These rights are declarations about how each human being deserves to be treated. These rights recognise the inherent value of each person regardless of background, status or beliefs.

The idea of veganism is that we owe a duty to other species to recognise their inherent value in a similar fashion whenever we can. As other species cannot participate in human civic society, it doesn't make sense to believe that most of our human rights may similarly apply to other species. However, three of them could. These are Articles 3-5.

Abstracting from those articles, I suggest that ethical veganism proposes that other species be treated as though they have these rights:

What is the difference between 'ethical veganism' and just plain old 'veganism', to you?

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 am

• The right to life and liberty (that is, to be in charge of their own lives and not to be exploited)

• The right not to be held in slavery or servitude (that is, not to be owned and used as a commodity)

• The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (that is, not to be harmed unnecessarily)

As human rights are often usefully protected in law, most people in modern societies respect these fundamental rights of other people. This is not the case for other animals. Because of this, ethical vegans are simply people who choose to behave as though these rights are protected in law.

That's it.

Conceiving of veganism in this way makes it very easy to work out what to do. It also means that how any individual wants to behave accordingly is, in the end, entirely up to them. But if they act in good faith, they will aim to treat other species very much as they treat other people in regard to these three fundamental rights. There may be empirical matters involved when working what's best to do. For example, is a particular species sentient such that we owe it this consideration? By and large, making these decisions will entail gathering knowledge about such matters and making appropriate choices.

It should be clear from this that there really is no such thing as a "vegan".

If the truth be known there is really no such thing as any other of the names and labels placed onto human beings.

What really exists are human beings with differing 'thoughts'.

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 am Instead, all there can be are people whose choices and actions fall somewhere on a continuum from restricting such considerations to only humans to those who offer full consideration to other sentient species.

If human beings stopped continually making more rules and/or more rights and just stopped abusing all things, then these sorts of discussions would not be needed.

People's choices and mis/behaviors fall somewhere on a continuum from 'abuse' to 'using, or treating, properly and correct'. So, when human beings stop abusing things, then they will be doing only what is just and right in Life.

What is the difference between 'ethical veganism' and just plain old 'veganism', to you?

I think there really is only ethical veganism. Other interpretations include "veganism" as a diet for sentimental reasons or to address environmental concerns. These examples are more like personal strategies to address certain problems.

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 am I have posted here in Applied Ethics because veganism is exactly that, the application of ethics into everyday behaviours. Hopefully this is a good place for such a discussion.

I want to offer an explanation of ethical veganism. Ethical veganism is variously described as a philosophy and a lifestyle. I don't think it is particularly either, though of course people adopting veganism will choose to act in certain ways according to some guiding principles. However, as best I can tell, veganism is an idea. The idea is that we extend certain ethical principles of moral consideration to include other species.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes in 30 articles to formalise certain ethical principles into a set of "rights". These rights are declarations about how each human being deserves to be treated. These rights recognise the inherent value of each person regardless of background, status or beliefs.

The idea of veganism is that we owe a duty to other species to recognise their inherent value in a similar fashion whenever we can. As other species cannot participate in human civic society, it doesn't make sense to believe that most of our human rights may similarly apply to other species. However, three of them could. These are Articles 3-5.

Abstracting from those articles, I suggest that ethical veganism proposes that other species be treated as though they have these rights:

• The right to life and liberty (that is, to be in charge of their own lives and not to be exploited)

• The right not to be held in slavery or servitude (that is, not to be owned and used as a commodity)

• The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (that is, not to be harmed unnecessarily)

As human rights are often usefully protected in law, most people in modern societies respect these fundamental rights of other people. This is not the case for other animals. Because of this, ethical vegans are simply people who choose to behave as though these rights are protected in law.

That's it.

Conceiving of veganism in this way makes it very easy to work out what to do. It also means that how any individual wants to behave accordingly is, in the end, entirely up to them. But if they act in good faith, they will aim to treat other species very much as they treat other people in regard to these three fundamental rights. There may be empirical matters involved when working what's best to do. For example, is a particular species sentient such that we owe it this consideration? By and large, making these decisions will entail gathering knowledge about such matters and making appropriate choices.

It should be clear from this that there really is no such thing as a "vegan". Instead, all there can be are people whose choices and actions fall somewhere on a continuum from restricting such considerations to only humans to those who offer full consideration to other sentient species.

one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue. Some jerkoffs try to apply their self-righteousness to the Bible but God’s covenant (agreement) with Noah and his children (meaning us) its ok the eat just about anything that moves. As far as pork or clean and unclean or some other religious right, that is something they agree to therefore it’s a matter of ethics if one agrees and then disregards what he has agreed to deceiving those in the agreement. Then ethics or morals are in play, but that could apply to anything one agrees to, not some self-righteous diet.

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 am I have posted here in Applied Ethics because veganism is exactly that, the application of ethics into everyday behaviours. Hopefully this is a good place for such a discussion.

Abstracting from those articles, I suggest that ethical veganism proposes that other species be treated as though they have these rights:

• The right to life and liberty (that is, to be in charge of their own lives and not to be exploited)

So can't ride horses anymore?

• The right not to be held in slavery or servitude (that is, not to be owned and used as a commodity)

So can't ride horses anymore?

Do you think a chicken thinks about the fact that it is in a coop, it lays eggs that disappear and every now and then one of its mates disappear!?

So I can't eat eggs? I can't eat chickens?

• The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (that is, not to be harmed unnecessarily)

I agree to that. Animals I want to eat should be killed in the nicest possible way.

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 amAs human rights are often usefully protected in law, most people in modern societies respect these fundamental rights of other people. This is not the case for other animals. Because of this, ethical vegans are simply people who choose to behave as though these rights are protected in law.

Have you ever considered the ethics of what being a total pain in the arse to others is?

There is nothing more painful when cooking a delicious Italian (or other) meal then getting the bad news that Graeme *that veganist is coming over for dinner. Honestly, I hope you take your own packed meal with you when invited to someones house for dinner! (that would be the ethical thing to do)

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 am

• The right to life and liberty (that is, to be in charge of their own lives and not to be exploited)

• The right not to be held in slavery or servitude (that is, not to be owned and used as a commodity)

• The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (that is, not to be harmed unnecessarily)

As human rights are often usefully protected in law, most people in modern societies respect these fundamental rights of other people. This is not the case for other animals. Because of this, ethical vegans are simply people who choose to behave as though these rights are protected in law.

If we begin to assume animals have rights like humans, wouldn't we then also have to hold them to responsibilities also? IOW aren't animal carnivores disrespecting the rights of the animals they kill and eat?

Does it hold for other rights? Do we start looking at sexual encounters between animals to see if there is consent?

And then, where to we draw the line with animals? Are we getting down to insects? Because in the insect world all sorts of horrible interpersonal relations, including intraspecies relations, are present.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 9:31 pm
one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue. Some jerkoffs try to apply their self-righteousness to the Bible but God’s covenant (agreement) with Noah and his children (meaning us) its ok the eat just about anything that moves. As far as pork or clean and unclean or some other religious right, that is something they agree to therefore it’s a matter of ethics if one agrees and then disregards what he has agreed to deceiving those in the agreement. Then ethics or morals are in play, but that could apply to anything one agrees to, not some self-righteous diet.

If you wanted to talk about this you'd need to address the issue, not your own made up version of it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:17 pm ...
So can't ride horses anymore?

...

Do you think a chicken thinks about the fact that it is in a coop, it lays eggs that disappear and every now and then one of its mates disappear!?

So I can't eat eggs? I can't eat chickens?

...

I agree to that. Animals I want to eat should be killed in the nicest possible way.

...

Have you ever considered the ethics of what being a total pain in the arse to others is?

There is nothing more painful when cooking a delicious Italian (or other) meal then getting the bad news that Graeme *that veganist is coming over for dinner. Honestly, I hope you take your own packed meal with you when invited to someones house for dinner! (that would be the ethical thing to do)

The point of the post is to discuss a question of ethics, hence posting in the Applied Ethics forum. If you have a criticism, maybe it would help to address the case made, then I can respond. Your personal incredulity is simply that and not something I can talk to.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:33 pm ]If we begin to assume animals have rights like humans, wouldn't we then also have to hold them to responsibilities also? IOW aren't animal carnivores disrespecting the rights of the animals they kill and eat?

Does it hold for other rights? Do we start looking at sexual encounters between animals to see if there is consent?

And then, where to we draw the line with animals? Are we getting down to insects? Because in the insect world all sorts of horrible interpersonal relations, including intraspecies relations, are present.

Rights are a means of protecting interests. What this means is that we have a way of constraining relations between people to ensure that person A doesn't prevent person B's interests. Of course, it depends on A and B agreeing to this; that is why we have laws and why we worry about human rights violations. In the case of other species, we are talking about a one-way relationship because other species cannot enter into any kind of agreement. So in this case "rights" is a shorthand for "duties". We are talking only about what ethical duties we have to other species in order to protect their interests insofar as our actions are concerned.

As to which species, for the sake of discussion I'd leave that open. The question is whether it's reasonable to extend rights to other species. In my post, I note that for now, we don't do this. Animal Rights activists seek to have that changed. "Vegans" are people who choose to behave as though these rights have been awarded.

The main purpose of my post is to explain why people might choose to adopt vegan ethics and why that is consistent with everyday ethical behaviour. I do not think it is possible to criticise this explanation. Veganism is a sensible, rational and defensible strategy aligned with everyday ethics.

Graeme M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:48 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:17 pm ...
So can't ride horses anymore?

...

Do you think a chicken thinks about the fact that it is in a coop, it lays eggs that disappear and every now and then one of its mates disappear!?

So I can't eat eggs? I can't eat chickens?

...

I agree to that. Animals I want to eat should be killed in the nicest possible way.

...

Have you ever considered the ethics of what being a total pain in the arse to others is?

There is nothing more painful when cooking a delicious Italian (or other) meal then getting the bad news that Graeme *that veganist is coming over for dinner. Honestly, I hope you take your own packed meal with you when invited to someones house for dinner! (that would be the ethical thing to do)

The point of the post is to discuss a question of ethics, hence posting in the Applied Ethics forum. If you have a criticism, maybe it would help to address the case made, then I can respond. Your personal incredulity is simply that and not something I can talk to.

Oh. Ok, you want animals to have basically the same rights as humans because you think it is unethical for the likes of a chicken to be locked up in a coop..we should set all the chickens loose? What do we do about the foxes?

So along the lines of what Iwannaplato stated, is it unethical for a lion to kill a Zebra? So we would actually be putting the entire animal kingdom on a pedastal above our own rights to eat, yes? (apart from the likes of poor old chickens that would have been far safer in that jail called a coop)

Graeme M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:55 pm Rights are a means of protecting interests. What this means is that we have a way of constraining relations between people to ensure that person A doesn't prevent person B's interests. Of course, it depends on A and B agreeing to this; that is why we have laws and why we worry about human rights violations. In the case of other species, we are talking about a one-way relationship because other species cannot enter into any kind of agreement. So in this case "rights" is a shorthand for "duties". We are talking only about what ethical duties we have to other species in order to protect their interests insofar as our actions are concerned.

As to which species, for the sake of discussion I'd leave that open. The question is whether it's reasonable to extend rights to other species. In my post, I note that for now, we don't do this. Animal Rights activists seek to have that changed. "Vegans" are people who choose to behave as though these rights have been awarded.

The main purpose of my post is to explain why people might choose to adopt vegan ethics and why that is consistent with everyday ethical behaviour. I do not think it is possible to criticise this explanation. Veganism is a sensible, rational and defensible strategy aligned with everyday ethics.

My first reaction is that I think rights is the wrong way to go to make this argument. I think compassion or empathy for other life forms is much better approach.

I do think a rights based argument could be improved. Some of the parts of what I quoted in my previous post seem to indicate we are in fact dealing with creatures that can have a two way street with us. That they have a right to liberty, for example. That they have a right to not be used as a commodity. I am a fairly priviledged human, given my educational background and the skills I have acquired. They are not great skills, but so far I have managed to put food on the table and the like. But I am definitely treated as commodity. If I do not provide products or services, regardless of whether my doing this remotely suits me, I will have survival issues. And my liberty is infringed in a variety of ways, mainly in the work world and because of working. And I'm not an extremely fussy person. I've taken and even felt fine in jobs that most would consider below my educational background. I don't quite think like that. At the same time, I have had to put up with psychotic bosses and then even in what are considered decent working situations, I have had to put up with yes, being treated as a commodity, and had to do things that I would not want to do if I didn't have to keep money coming in. One long stretch I had to put up with much more than usual because a family member had a life threatening disease. Commodities are things that can be bought and sold. Companies have told me and others to move within the country or lose the work. And then the very process of selling my time and labor and dignity and health for money means that I must treat myself as a commodity.

But here we are talking about the liberty and not being treated as a commodity of other species. That seems to me to be putting them on a par with me.

We do, often, grant rights to unequals, like children. But then children tend not to have anything like the right to liberty that adults have. They do have the right to not be formally treated as commodities. You can't sell your kids, at least not openly in 'the West'. But they don't have the right to much control over their time and activities, even socially. Most parents do allow them some degree of freedom, but they have no right to it.

Most vegans cannot stop themselves from restricting, directly or indirectly, the freedoms and interests of animals. At least, veganism itself is far from enough. You'd have to not use oil or any other product that leads to environmental destruction, and wind power would be out also. You would really have to live simply, in a way that most vegans are not capable of. You can certainly try to minimize harm, but the harm most Westerners cause to animals and certainly limiting animal freedom and blocking animal interests, is only partly to do with what one eats and wears.

I would say, of course being a vegan can be a rational choice. I wouldn't argue that they are being irrational or immoral for deciding to eat as a vegan. I did once, for a few years. I am sure some people think they are wrong, morally. But I think most are reacting to vegans judgments that non-vegans are immoral, rather than whether vegans themselves are being immoral for not eating animal products. And probably even the nastiest critics of veganism would think vegans had the right to not eat animal products.

I wish everyday ethics regarding humans was how you wish to extend it to animals, but that's not what I experience.

Oh, and yes, my life is much better than some cow on a factory farm. My point is more that those rights are at a level where we do not manage with humans. They are rights where we generally do expect responsibilities and when children reach a certain level where they have rights to freedom and we must protect and not inhibit their interests, they also have duties themselves.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 12:07 am
Oh. Ok, you want animals to have basically the same rights as humans because you think it is unethical for the likes of a chicken to be locked up in a coop..we should set all the chickens loose? What do we do about the foxes?

So along the lines of what Iwannaplato stated, is it unethical for a lion to kill a Zebra? So we would actually be putting the entire animal kingdom on a pedastal above our own rights to eat, yes? (apart from the likes of poor old chickens that would have been far safer in that jail called a coop)

According to the UN, there are 30 articles in the Human Rights declaration that attempt to define the principal rights humans should enjoy. Most of these relate to behaviour in human societies, so no, I do not want other species to have these rights. Instead I am saying that there are three core, basic rights that could be extended to other species. These form the basis for what we could call ethical veganism, which is NOT about diet but about how we interact with other species.

Because we are talking about what we do, it is not relevant what lions do to zebras. This is about what we choose to do. And no, it is not compromising on our right to live our lives, simply putting some constraints around what we should do.

Lastly, animal rights are not recognised, so in effect they currently do not exist. My post isn't meant to say whether we should or should not give other species these rights. I am outlining a simple explanation for the underlying ethical principles of veganism.

Consider this in the context of human rights. Article 3 says humans have the right to life, liberty and security of person. Without laws to carry this through, people wouldn't always be protected by this right. Now, some people might say, I believe this right is everyone's right - even though no laws exist to make me behave in this way, it is right that I do. We don't necessarily need laws to make us do right, but it is helpful. In the absence of laws, we can act on what we think are sound ethical principles.

Vegans therefore behave as though these rights should be awarded to other species. Even though no laws exist to enforce this right, they choose to behave as though they do. And that is consistent with how we seem to believe we should act in relation to other people.

In regard to my feelings about chickens, yes I believe they should not be bred in large numbers in shitty conditions so people can have an egg for breakfast. I am behaving as though chickens should have the right to liberty and freedom.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 1:03 am My first reaction is that I think rights is the wrong way to go to make this argument. I think compassion or empathy for other life forms is much better approach.

Just to emphasise, I am not proposing that animals have rights. I am drawing a parallel between veganism and the everyday ethics governing human relations. The underlying three ethical principles are the argument. When extended to humans, we lawfully expect to receive and extend those rights. Veganism is the idea that in the absence of those laws, we choose to act towards other species in the same ways for the same reasons, whenever we can.

Put more simply, rights aim to ensure justice. Veganism is about aiming to treat other species justly.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 9:31 pm

Graeme M wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:55 am I have posted here in Applied Ethics because veganism is exactly that, the application of ethics into everyday behaviours. Hopefully this is a good place for such a discussion.

I want to offer an explanation of ethical veganism. Ethical veganism is variously described as a philosophy and a lifestyle. I don't think it is particularly either, though of course people adopting veganism will choose to act in certain ways according to some guiding principles. However, as best I can tell, veganism is an idea. The idea is that we extend certain ethical principles of moral consideration to include other species.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes in 30 articles to formalise certain ethical principles into a set of "rights". These rights are declarations about how each human being deserves to be treated. These rights recognise the inherent value of each person regardless of background, status or beliefs.

The idea of veganism is that we owe a duty to other species to recognise their inherent value in a similar fashion whenever we can. As other species cannot participate in human civic society, it doesn't make sense to believe that most of our human rights may similarly apply to other species. However, three of them could. These are Articles 3-5.

Abstracting from those articles, I suggest that ethical veganism proposes that other species be treated as though they have these rights:

• The right to life and liberty (that is, to be in charge of their own lives and not to be exploited)

• The right not to be held in slavery or servitude (that is, not to be owned and used as a commodity)

• The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (that is, not to be harmed unnecessarily)

As human rights are often usefully protected in law, most people in modern societies respect these fundamental rights of other people. This is not the case for other animals. Because of this, ethical vegans are simply people who choose to behave as though these rights are protected in law.

That's it.

Conceiving of veganism in this way makes it very easy to work out what to do. It also means that how any individual wants to behave accordingly is, in the end, entirely up to them. But if they act in good faith, they will aim to treat other species very much as they treat other people in regard to these three fundamental rights. There may be empirical matters involved when working what's best to do. For example, is a particular species sentient such that we owe it this consideration? By and large, making these decisions will entail gathering knowledge about such matters and making appropriate choices.

It should be clear from this that there really is no such thing as a "vegan". Instead, all there can be are people whose choices and actions fall somewhere on a continuum from restricting such considerations to only humans to those who offer full consideration to other sentient species.

one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue. Some jerkoffs try to apply their self-righteousness to the Bible but God’s covenant (agreement) with Noah and his children (meaning us) its ok the eat just about anything that moves.

When 'you' say, "it's okay to eat just about anything that moves", here, what 'moving things' have 'you' decided should not be eaten, in 'your' self-righteous diet?

DPMartin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 9:31 pm As far as pork or clean and unclean or some other religious right, that is something they agree to therefore it’s a matter of ethics if one agrees and then disregards what he has agreed to deceiving those in the agreement. Then ethics or morals are in play, but that could apply to anything one agrees to, not some self-righteous diet.

Graeme M wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 11:45 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 9:31 pm
one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue. Some jerkoffs try to apply their self-righteousness to the Bible but God’s covenant (agreement) with Noah and his children (meaning us) its ok the eat just about anything that moves. As far as pork or clean and unclean or some other religious right, that is something they agree to therefore it’s a matter of ethics if one agrees and then disregards what he has agreed to deceiving those in the agreement. Then ethics or morals are in play, but that could apply to anything one agrees to, not some self-righteous diet.

If you wanted to talk about this you'd need to address the issue, not your own made up version of it.

It is on subject, isn’t it?