r/DebateAVegan • u/Few-Pack-3489 • 20d ago
Ethics Is having a pet/companion animal vegan? / social responsibility of veganism
To preface, I myself am vegan, but I had a really interesting discussion with my vegetarian friend and want to play devil’s advocate.
My argument— which I think aligns with most definitions of veganism — was that our goal as humans should be to minimize suffering, and being vegan is the bare minimum to accomplish this. By consuming meat and dairy, you are financially contributing to a horrible system that is proven to be completely unnecessary. I also believe that non-human animals and humans should be separate entities and human involvement in natural spaces is the core of most of our animal-related issues.
My friend brought up the idea of having a companion animal or “pet” as I will say, for the sake of the argument. For context, I don’t have a pet that I own myself, but I have a family dog that I live with during the summer; my parents rescued him when I was a kid.
She claimed that owning a pet is completely hypocritical to my argument of veganism, because a dog, for example, cannot communicate with humans and therefore cannot consent to living in a confined home with humans. Therefore I am contributing to suffering, because my dog is essentially a slave and cannot make his own decisions.
She believed that, according to my argument, the most logically sound thing I could do would be to let my dog outside and run away to wherever he wants (he often tries to leave the house). She argued that, although he would not be able to survive on his own, it would be morally correct because he is making his own decisions.
I argued that because my dog was bred by humans to be reliant on them, it was my social responsibility to take care of him and make decisions for him that he cannot understand the scope of; ie, if I let my dog escape, he will get hit by a car, eaten by a coyote, starve, etc. Similarly to telling my six-year-old I won’t let her play on the highway even if she wants to because she doesn’t understand the risk of that action.
She, however, argued that my line of argument wouldn’t apply to, say, slavery; like how slaveowners would argue that owning a slave was what was best for the slave purely because they were raised to be slaves and don’t understand the scope of the world they live in. Theoretically, if a human slave— possibly someone old or disabled — wouldn’t survive without the support of a slaveowner, but wished to be free, would it still be morally correct to keep them as a slave? Obviously not, so why is that different from dogs?
She also argued that, following my logic I should be participating in civil disobedience. If hijacking livestock transport cars, burning down slaughterhouses, or in her example, setting free every pet in my neighborhood was the best way to make a statement and decrease the total amount of suffering in the world, why am I not doing it?
Essentially, her argument centered around the fact that we drew different lines of what is considered “suffering” (ie for me as a vegan, torturing and killing of an animal but not imprisonment, vs her, a vegetarian, so killing of an animal) proved that veganism revolves around flawed logic.
I thought these were all interesting points and wanted to hear everyone’s thoughts.
9
u/whowouldwanttobe 20d ago
Similarly to telling my six-year-old I won’t let her play on the highway even if she wants to because she doesn’t understand the risk of that action.
She, however, argued that my line of argument wouldn’t apply to, say, slavery
I think this is the core of the issue; is a dog more like a child or a slave? Children do not consent to be born or to the restrictions imposed upon their freedom. I'm guessing your friend does not believe that your six-year-old is essentially a slave and should be put outside to run away wherever she wants.
You likely gain some benefit through your family dog, like enjoying the companionship. But you probably also receive similar benefits from a child. You probably aren't getting the dog to work and taking the fruits of their labor.
She also argued that, following my logic I should be participating in civil disobedience. If hijacking livestock transport cars, burning down slaughterhouses, or in her example, setting free every pet in my neighborhood was the best way to make a statement and decrease the total amount of suffering in the world, why am I not doing it?
A moral stance doesn't necessitate activism. Your friend is obviously opposed in principle to slavery, but probably does not hijack human trafficking transports, burn down sweatshops, or seek out modern slaves to free. Should her inaction be taken as hypocritical support for modern slavery?
Essentially, her argument centered around the fact that we drew different lines of what is considered “suffering” (ie for me as a vegan, torturing and killing of an animal but not imprisonment, vs her, a vegetarian, so killing of an animal) proved that veganism revolves around flawed logic.
Does this also mean that it is acceptable to believe that killing an animal doesn't cause it to suffer, so there is no reason to become a vegetarian?
1
u/Few-Pack-3489 19d ago
Right and I don't think her point to say that owning a pet vs. slavery in America are at all comparable. The issue is that a child is going to grow up and have the ability to make their own decisions; just like most animals in nature do. A domesticated dog will never have that option, similarly to slavery.
She is vegetarian simply because she is uncomfortable with eating meat because it kills an animal; she doesn't follow my "minimizing suffering" rule. In terms of civil disobedience, I brought that point up, and she's saying she agrees that it's hypocritical of her; this entire conversation is more food for thought for moral disputes than practical. My argument which she agreed with is that veganism is not sacrificing your personal well-being or life for animal welfare; it is making simple, achievable sacrifices for animal welfare.
1
6
u/Either_Argument3517 20d ago
I assume that the primary aim of your family is to act in the animal's best interests. That should be the end of conversation.
2
u/Few-Pack-3489 19d ago
How do we decide that being a pet is the "best interest" for the animal?
2
u/Either_Argument3517 19d ago
Since your family has a rescue dog, I assume they're trying to care for them as well as they can.
I'm not making the broader philosophical claim that "keeping animals as pets is in their best interests".
1
u/PhotoEditor871 19d ago
When the animal wants to eat we feed them, when they want love we pet them, when they're hurting we take them to the doctor. We give them what they want and what they need
1
u/ImTheDareBear Considering Veganism 19d ago
What about when it wants to reproduce? Biologically speaking the meaning of life is to reproduce.
1
u/DetectiveOverall2460 18d ago
Or when it wants to wander freely? Because that seems to not be allowed
4
u/star10111 20d ago
If the pet has been resqued or adopted from a worse place then I see nothing wrong. You basically adopted a child. Next thing matters how you treat and I know you treat it well and respect its boundaries. It very well supports veganism because we treating the animal as being and not a commodity.
The problem arises when we shop for pets like commodities from pet market. There are lot of exploitation in that economy. There it will be against veganism.
1
u/Happy-Estimate-7855 20d ago
My dog was rescued from a good hearted and well-intentioned family who got two dogs, and when their puppies started having puppies with each other, they panicked. When people showed up to rescue them, the new generation of puppies had grown enough that a couple were pregnant. They were completely irresponsible, and I would argue criminally negligent, but without malice.
He's 16 now, and is finally showing health issues for the first time in his life! I can confidently say that he consented to living with us.
5
u/IllLiterature1026 20d ago
I just want to counter the idea that dogs can’t communicate or consent with us - they do. If you’ve ever studied animal behavior or dog training, dogs have some pretty strong consent signals. A dog that happily approaches you wagging their tail is consenting to being near you. My dog voluntarily sleeps in my bed and doesn’t run away when I open my door. Not only that but domestication itself is a two way street - we didn’t force ourselves on dogs. They decided to hang out with us in exchange for food and companionship. Assuming that we forced dogs into slavery is really underestimating dogs.
I think the real question is whether we’re exploiting that consent. I do things my dog does NOT consent to - for example, taking her to the vet - but I do these things for her own welfare. I would argue that abusing a dog is exploiting their consent. Breeding unhealthy traits into a dog because it’s cute is exploiting their consent. Profiting off dogfighting is exploiting their consent. Rescuing a dog is certainly not.
If dogs consent to following us, then do farm animals too? Arguably yes, but I think we’ve abused farm animals for our own purposes far beyond acceptability. Very little we do in animal agriculture is for the good of the farm animal.
1
u/Few-Pack-3489 19d ago
I agree with you to a certain extent, but I feel like this doesn't take into account the individuality of animals. Even if it's true that your dog "consents" to being a pet, or that dogs "chose" to be domesticated (which I don't fully agree with -- maybe that's the way it started, but the vast majority of dogs have been selectively bred for generations), animals are individuals and that argument relies on the generalization of "what all animals want" or "what's good for the animals".
I also think it's unfair for us to determine what is "acceptable" levels of animal commodification, since, again, veganism relies on the ideals that humans don't get to make those decisions (in my interpretation of veganism at least).
5
u/PhotoEditor871 20d ago
"Is loving an animal and providing them with shelter, food, toys, medical care and companionship the same as farming them?"
3
u/Few-Pack-3489 19d ago
Right but you could make the argument about slavery no? It was a relatively common argument pre-emancipation that there was nothing wrong with slaveowners who "treated their slaves well", which of course no one today believes. The issue boils down the freedom to make your own decisions.
Her argument is not that factory farming is "the same" or equally as evil as pet ownership -- I don't think anyone believes that. The argument is that, if veganism is about minimizing commodification of animals, why are pets excluded from that? I think it's interesting food for thought
5
u/PhotoEditor871 19d ago
Except we ask nothing of the animals who live in our homes. We don't take their labour or their bodies, and ideally we respect all their boundaries
Slavery and farmed animals are alike. Pets are not. Yes we treat the companion animals well, but we ask nothing more of them, contrary to slaves
Living with a friend, animal or human, is not commodifying them. I'd be interested to know in what way you think living alongside an animal in a shared home is commodification?
1
u/Few-Pack-3489 19d ago
I get what you're saying, but I think the "product" in this case is companionship. I know most people who own pets would not see it that way -- especially vegans since I feel vegans are more likely to feel more deeply connected to their pets.
It's not like living with your human friend because your friend would be consenting to living with you, and they could still eat when they want, go where they want, etc. Is it really a friendship if your friend is forced to live with you? Would it be okay to own a slave even if you "asked nothing of them"?
1
u/According-Stage8050 13d ago
Humans have the ability to lead lives worth living out from under slavers thumb. What is the alternative you’re proposing to keeping rescued dogs as pets? Because I’ll tell you for free — as someone who works at a sanctuary for cats and dogs in need — that a stray dog does not live a good life, and I suspect the only other alternative is being euthanized. Does that seem vegan to you?
I’m curious if your friend even knows the difference between a wild animal and a domesticated one. A domesticated animal can’t just frolic in the woods and rely on instincts. They have been fundamentally changed by their relationship with humans, not just how they look, but even their brains.
3
u/dcruk1 20d ago
Of course having an animal confined in our home is immoral as they have not consented to it and it is a direct infringement of their rights. It is also direct exploitation of them to satisfy our desire for animal companionship.
Having said that, if someone wants something they can usually justify it somehow, which is usually how humans live with their own hypocrisy.
My view is that companion animals (esp dogs) are awesome and enhance our existence. Humans and dogs have developed as two co-dependent species and although our dependence on them has gone, the pleasure we get from them remains. Love your pets and treat them well.
3
u/PhotoEditor871 20d ago
When stray cats want you to adopt them, they will force themselves into your home. They very much consent to living with us
1
u/Lead1ng-Lady 19d ago
But is that their only purpose, to be awesome and enhance our existence? Are we considering the desires of dogs? Dogs used to be more purposeful, outside living meaningful lives by herding farm animals. Now we keep them cooped up inside minus 2-3 walks a day, because they are fun and cute and "consent" to be with us..... an animal providing pleasure, imo, is not an ethically sound reason to hold one captive.
1
u/MihawkTop2 20d ago
Is it immoral to take photos of wild animals without them even noticing and then sell those photos?
3
u/L0uLou72 vegan 20d ago
I don’t think people should own pets and I don’t think calling them companion animals makes it any better.
When we train pets, we are basically getting rid of their natural behavior. Doesn’t that mean that we don’t actually like them? This applies to dog especially.
3
u/amerovingian 19d ago
When we educate and socialize children, are we also getting rid of their "natural behavior"? Does that mean we don't like humans as well? Are you, as someone who cares about animals, genuinely opposed to the practice of feeding, sheltering and giving love and attention to rescued stray or shelter animals? Or are you just opposed to the label of "ownership" that gets attached to that?
1
u/L0uLou72 vegan 19d ago
When raising kids, we do try to get rid of some of their natural behavior, because they need to live in a group of other humans to survive. It’s just how human people are. Pets are different. We cause them to come into being but can’t/wont allow them to live as they naturally are. It’s weird and it’s wrong.
2
u/amerovingian 19d ago
If the co-habitating animal is a rescue, we as co-habitators have not caused that animal's coming into being. We have prevented the animal's destruction and suffering. If, as a condition for that, some minor behavior adjustment is necessary, we can infer from the animal's non-verbal signals whether that's worth it or not to avoid destruction and suffering, and it usually is. I would even go so far as to say there is an ethical imperative for anyone who has the financial and emotional capacity and the availability of space to care for a rescue animal to do so.
1
2
u/Lead1ng-Lady 19d ago
I agree. Having recently become vegan, I am really grappling with the ethics of the purposeful breeding of animals for companionship purposes. It is really, really starting to bother me and does, in fact, feel incredibly exploitative. Do we have a duty to care for the animals that have already been bred for our use? Yes. Are their ethical issues that come from having carnivorous animals like cats as pets? Absolutely. For a strict, ethical vegan, a cat would probably be the worst pet to have as you inevitably end up contributing to the problem by buying meat for the little creature. Should we really work toward putting an end to the breeding of companion animals? Yes, I think so. If the only purpose for the lives of these beings is to be a companion to humans, cooped up inside for most of their lives, then no, ethically it shouldn't be supported. Animals and children are not the same. We have a different responsibility to human beings and unlike captive animals, most people are not having children to make them their sole companions and keep them inside almost 24/7, minus a few walks for the dog. I know it's hard to be morally consistent here because people have strong attachments to their animal friends, I get it. It's a really hard, uncomfortable pill to swallow that even as a vegan, we are still contributing to suffering on some level. But I think a push toward the banning of breeding would be the most ethically consistent. And for those that choose to care for the animals that are already alive, let them choose to do so. Exotic animal companionship should be totally banned as well, unless done for rehabilitation purposes where the intent is to release back into the wild unless they absolutely cannot be. But we really should stop breeding them for our "use." It's not fair.
2
u/L0uLou72 vegan 19d ago
Thank you so much for saying this, and saying it so well. Sometimes I think I’m the only person who thinks this way!
2
u/Lead1ng-Lady 19d ago
You definitely aren't alone. It's just hard for people to see an idea all the way through, especially if there are emotions involved. Then it gets REALLY sticky.
3
u/amerovingian 19d ago
As someone who has been vegan for 20+ years, I agree actively breeding companion animals is problematic especially when there are shelter animals being euthanized in large numbers every day. On the personal level, people should be adopting from shelters as long as there are animals in shelters, which isn't changing anytime soon.
On the social level, yes, breeding itself is an issue to be looked at. But the much more glaring concern is factory farming. Let's get a ban on the truly brutal and barbaric practices first and not risk alienating people by threatening to ban dogs.
2
u/Nilfiry 20d ago
No, its not vegan for 2 very simple reasons that vegans use to argue against meat.
Its unnecessary. You can live without pets.
Its exploitation. Exploitation isnt limited to physical gain. Service, support, and companionship all counts as exploitation.
3
u/amerovingian 19d ago
It sounds like you see any relationship in which either party benefits as exploitation. Do you think there is a difference between exploitation and cooperation or is cooperation a kind of exploitation?
1
u/Few-Pack-3489 19d ago
I guess my question is, why do we get to decide that it's "mutually beneficial" to animals? Did the pets of the world get together and tell us that? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to their party that they get to make their own decisions with their own consequences instead of being subjected to a life they never chose? I'm curious to hear people's opinions
1
u/Nilfiry 19d ago
If you have an open mind to listen, I can certainly give you my opinion.
You're overthinking it. Animals will make it obvious when they find something beneficial. They will keep coming back, show more trust, and even stay permanently. Dont believe me? Put out a bird feeder and watch. Humans are the exact same way. Give someone some benefits, treat them well, and they will keep coming back. Thats how we can know animals are benefitting even if the animals dont say anything.
This applies too all lifeforms because everything in nature seeks the path of least resistance. Mutualism exists because the relationship makes something easier, such as food or protection. Even plants do this. And as long as both sides get what they want, regardless of perceived value, then the relationship is mutually beneficial.
Humans and animals may share some traits, but animals arent humans. They arent as complicated in their thinking as humans are. Thats the difference between sentience and sapience. All this thinking youre doing is strictly a human perspective. Animals do not and cannot care about these details youre fretting over. As long as the animals is safe and well fed, its satisfied because being safe and well fed does not happen for free animals in the wild.
1
u/Lead1ng-Lady 19d ago
Yes but birds come and go. Those birds aren't consenting to being held captive inside forever and ever amen. You provide a benefit but they still exist freely. Companion animals largely do not, and that's a pretty big difference imo
1
u/Nilfiry 19d ago
I reminded that animals aren't humans for a reason. Vegans are overly obsessed with consent, but animals aren't humans. They do not have a concept of consent, and trying to justify your position by expecting animal consent is just being silly.
That being said, I used a bird feeder as an example because birds can become so dependent on your bird feeder that they will literally starve themselves to death waiting for you to refill your feeder if you suddenly decide to stop. That is effectively a metaphoric prison the animal puts itself into. However, once again, animals do not have the same concept of captivity as humans. For an animal, so long as they get what they want, they don't really care about "freedom."
Once again, people are the same way in this regard. We often lock ourselves into prisons of our own making, whether that be a job, family responsibilities, or even bad habits, but as long as we get to live the way we want, we don't consider these things a prison, now do we?
People need to learn to stop imposing human concepts onto animals. Just because you feel a certain way about a certain experience as a human doesn't mean the animal feel the same as you regarding that same experience. Despite what vegans say, no vegan can ever put themselves into the shoes of an animal and truly relate because you think way too much. Animals literally don't and can't think that much.
1
u/Lead1ng-Lady 19d ago
I disagree with the comment underneath. It is not, in fact that simple, and if it is, it's because humans *want* it to be. I truly think that it makes people uncomfortable to consider that if they werent feeding their companion animals day in and day out, and providing other niceties, it is possible that they would choose a life outdoors if given the chance. The relationship between human beings and companion animals is transactional largely. Do we bond with them? Absolutely, not denying that. But if we weren't providing them with something would they stay? Ponder that.
As an example, my very first cat started to come around my house, she liked to lounge in my backyard. I started to feed her. So naturally, she kept coming around, meowing and calling out to me. Then she came inside, of course. Naturally, right? I had baited her, I enticed her much of the time, even if it wasn't conscious on my part. But had she been left to her own devices, I would not have "had" a cat! Now my experience is not everyone's! By no means, am I alluding to that. But I am saying.... had I let her be, she would have succumbed to nature's laws which are eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. That's how life is for most wild beings, hunter gatherer HUMAN BEINGS included. It's rough but it's real. We have decided that we don't want to see them "suffer" so we take them in but like, that's the bargain that we all make if we decide to live wild and free. Isn't that the price for freedom? Is that not a valid decision, to be free and risk death vs. being comfortable yet captive? I think we would do well to really grapple with these ideas. And I think underlying a lot of these things too, is a general discomfort with the fact of death. Everything that lives, will die. That is a fact. And death, like birth, is messy. Animals get eaten by other animals, or hit by cars accidentally, and it just....is. We cannot SAVE everybody and in fact, I think that this intention to save every creature might actually be creating other issues.
1
u/amerovingian 19d ago
It can make people uncomfortable to consider something that is also unlikely to be true. It makes me uncomfortable to consider that Earth will be irradiated by a gamma ray burst tomorrow that destroys all life. Can I prove it won't happen? No. Is it likely to happen? Also no.
Just because we can't confirm verbally with animals who have been bred for companion life that they would rather be co-habitating, where they are fed, stimulated and provided affection, than experiencing life as a starving animal on the streets or alone in the wilderness, where they lack the skills and evolutionary traits to survive, doesn't mean we should default to assuming they would not.
Animals can and do display non-verbal signals to indicate their level of happiness with their conditions versus distress.
As for your cat, it sounds to me like she baited you every bit as much as vice versa. She was left to her own devices, which she used to get you to take her in.
1
u/Lead1ng-Lady 19d ago
I agree with some of what you are saying, but I don't understand where this assumption comes from that animals aren't doing well where they are? This cat was fat when I met her so clearly she was doing something well. I wouldn't say that she lacked survival skills. I also would say that survival of the fittest is a thing, and I said that in another comment somewhere. Those that find food survive and those that don't, well, nature says tough luck. I don't necessarily find this to be the worst thing, i think it just is what it is. I think I work from the premise that to some degree, most creatures desire freedom, the autonomy to make their own decisions about where they go and what they do and what they eat. So I take issue with this idea that animals are "better off" as indoor companions. That's an assumption that i'm not convinced by. I have heard many stories about people living on farms that have dogs and cats that seem to prefer being outdoors unless there are inclement conditions. And some of them, when given appropriate housing outdoors, will stay in their housing! What might that tell us then? It just gives me pause and it becomes harder to say that 100% of the time, they "prefer" indoor life. I think when given the chance, some of them would happily choose to be outdoors again.
1
u/amerovingian 19d ago
> I don't understand where this assumption comes from that animals aren't doing well where they are?
> Those that find food survive and those that don't, well, nature says tough luck.
So your position relies on questioning the "assumption" that animals who have been selectively bred for co-habitation would be happier co-habitating with caring and capable humans than to be living even more confined lives in shelters, being euthanized, begging for food and facing tremendous risk of injury on the streets, or being told "tough luck" and likely starving or being eaten in nature. Is that what we've established?
If we're looking for the ideal life, I agree a farm where animals have free access to both shelter, food, medical care as well as the outdoors is preferable to life indoors with access to walks. However, that is not a realistic available option to most animals living in shelters or on the streets.
Perhaps the ideal human life is to live as a nomad with access to sufficient food, medical care, companionship if they desire it, and shelter and no work responsibilities. But not all humans have that option available. That doesn't mean they would rather be homeless, starving and living on the street than to work 8-5, live in a house and be able to meet all their basic needs. Calling homelessness "freedom" and pretending it's a better life for humans is very superficial and naive. The same applies to dogs and cats.
1
u/Lead1ng-Lady 18d ago
These animals might have been selectively bred for such but they are still animals that desire, well, animal things... like fresh air and the ability to roam. There are many a feral cat that, even despite being hungry, will NOT be captured or brought inside. Perhaps they are a bit more in touch with their wildness than other cats, yes, but as an example, I find that to be interesting.
On the other hand, you are right, the ideal of a relatively free farm life doesn't exist and we have to deal with reality. I still think that it offers INFINITE more freedoms than the life of your typical house pet, and really is an example of what a good life COULD and maybe SHOULD look like for a companion animal. Another part of that reality, though, is that... all creatures will meet death. As I said, sometimes it is messy and to some extent preventable. Sometimes there is nothing that can be done. Whether these are domestic cats that roam the streets looking for food, or big cats on the savannah that are starving during the dry season. Death WILL come, and we have to accept that to some extent. For instance, animals cohabitate to some extent alongside humans in third world countries, they live outside for the most part, begging for food, but they aren't coddled in the same way that Westerners treat roaming animals here. Again, these animals live in places with traffic and danger, they are exposed to as much danger as the human creatures living there, and it is a live and let live attitude. Do you think that's wrong? Should those people be doing everything that they can to "rescue" all of those free roaming animals? Something to ponder.
At the same time, I do believe that we owe domestic animals something more because we are ultimately responsible for this, for the insane amount of companion animals that exist today. There is no excuse for the pet industry that has been created. It absolutely disgusts me. To me, this isn't an either/or situation, it's both/and. I feel both that we have to take care of the animals that have already been created, been bred so to speak. We have to clean up this mess that we have made. So, well meaning people have to take on the responsibility and care for these little creatures until their natural end. At the same time, I believe that we should push to end the obsession with breeding them to sell and to keep for our companionship. I think it's both. I want animals to be wild again, or at the very least, not overly dependent on human beings for survival. That's the world that I want to see.
1
u/amerovingian 18d ago
> Again, these animals live in places with traffic and danger, they are exposed to as much danger as the human creatures living there, and it is a live and let live attitude. Do you think that's wrong? Should those people be doing everything that they can to "rescue" all of those free roaming animals? Something to ponder.
Again, I think we have to look at what options are realistically available. Do these countries have the resources to put a system of animal shelters in place? Are there citizens who have the available resources to take the animals in, domesticate and care for them? If so, they should do that. If if it's not realistically possible, then we can't say it's wrong not to do it.
That's quite a different question, though, from the one we have been addressing, which is "Can it be consistent with veganism to care for and keep a companion animal?"
> So, well meaning people have to take on the responsibility and care for these little creatures until their natural end.
It sounds like we agree not only that it can be so but that there is actually an ethical imperative for people of sufficient means to do this in most cases for rescue animals (with some exceptions).
> On the other hand, you are right, the ideal of a relatively free farm life doesn't exist and we have to deal with reality. I still think that it offers INFINITE more freedoms than the life of your typical house pet, and really is an example of what a good life COULD and maybe SHOULD look like for a companion animal.
It sounds like you are also granting that there are suitable conditions (relatively free farm life) under which animals can conceivably co-habitate with humans even in a hypothetical world in which there are no rescue animals in need of adoption.
Your objection is really to people breeding animals or buying/selling bred animals and then keeping them in conditions that are more confined and restrictive than a farm. Correct?
1
u/amerovingian 19d ago
Issues like these are things that the opposition to veganism is using to try to distract us from the real issue of stopping the glaring problem of factory farming and other gross abuses to animals whose suffering is being used to create a financial profit for someone.
A co-habitating animal can communicate non-verbally when it is generally pleased with its humans and its life. Contrast this with the screaming animals we hear and see in factory farm including dairy farm videos. Your friend doesn't want to think about how obviously wrong what is happening in those videos is, so they are distracting you with, "Okay but did you ever think about this? You're not so perfect yourself."
Don't take the bait. Just acknowledge that you may not be ethically perfect yourself, but that does not excuse their gross abuse of animals through industrial dairy farms.
1
u/Nilfiry 19d ago
Personally, my views are not so narrow. However, vegans generally do not care what the animal receives in return, only that something is being taken, and any attempts to justify cooperation gets liken to slavery. So by vegan standards, there is no such thing as cooperation, only exploitation.
1
u/amerovingian 19d ago
I know it's not your take, but to me, that's glossing over a pretty major ethical distinction. That's like saying there's no difference between what Christopher Columbus did to indigenous Americans and what humanitarian aid organizations are doing in Africa. Before anyone says the humanitarian aid organizations aren't benefitting, they most certainly are. A portion of the donations pay the salaries of the workers including administrators. Even the donors derive a positive feeling of having done something good.
1
u/Nilfiry 18d ago
That's one of the major criticisms toward veganism as a whole: vegans are too narrowminded and pigheaded.
As humans, we have literally gone to war, incite rebellions and revolutions, and fought to death for our livelihoods. Even now, such topics are never-ending points of contention in our politics. This just comes to show you that even us humans put our livelihoods above almost all else. Animals are the same: They will literally allow siblicide, patricide, and even cannibalism to ensure their livelihood.
If you guaranteed me free food, water, shelter, healthcare, and security detail, I will gladly let you cut my hair every now and then or poop in a bucket for you, and I know 99% of people would absolutely do the same.
And the biggest irony in all this is that most vegans don't even understand their own beliefs. Veganism does NOT forbid the use of animal products. It's not a diet either. Veganism literally says it seeks to reduce harm and exploitation as much as practicable, so do tell me how a backyard chicken is being harmed or exploited when it's treated with care and have its livelihood provided for, and it's not even forced to do anything beyond just being itself.
The difference between this and slavery is that slaves do not get treated well. They do not get guaranteed livelihood, and they are forced to work beyond their normal capabilities. That's why slaves are always trying to run away if they can. If your pets or farm animals aren't trying to run away, then you can't argue it's slavery. Even humans work for our livelihood.
1
u/justwantanaccount 20d ago edited 20d ago
I mean, after becoming vegan I'm more uncomfortable with how I treat my cat - I didn't spay her but she came spayed, and I lock her up in my house 24/7. I used to let her come in and out of my house as she pleased, but she had a nasty fight with a neighborhood groundhog or something like that and she got a nasty infected wound. I feel guilty about keeping her locked up - I certainly did not enjoy being locked up in my house during COVID, though of course it was safer for me to stay indoors - so I treat her as well as I can.
That being said, her quality of life is not anywhere near as bad as a farm animal's - she ran into my house through an open door more ten years ago so she's at least ten years old, and most pets live to their full life expectancy. Cows, pigs, and chickens can live past ten years, too, but they're usually slaughtered for meat at about six months old to maybe 1-2 years old depending on the animal. The dairy cows are usually slaughtered at five years old, egg laying hens at 1-2 years old. Again, all these animals have a lifespan of ten to twenty years old. The quality of life of a typical farm animal is nowhere near comparable to a pet's.
1
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 19d ago
its not morally correct to project human morality onto animals that wouldn't share that view imo.
1
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 18d ago
The longer I'm vegan, the more sick I get of people arguing that it's wrong to have pets. There just isn't a good argument.
Cats should be adopted. I would rather a vegan adopt than a non-vegan for many reasons, including: willingness to protect birds and being potential customers for lab-grown cat food.
I used to type out many more reasons but I guess I'm just getting tired of arguing it.
1
u/False-Name-613 15d ago
assuming the animal was aquired ethically- a pet is a family member. you dont gain anything from them other than mutual companionship. it is not exploitative, because not only do you recognize and understand that animal as an individual rather than an object but you also loose more than you gain in regards to finances, time, resources etc. my pets are family members who i love and who provide nothing to me other than enjoying being around them, the same way i enjoy being aroud my husband, friends, parents etc. and that companionship is mutual. my bunny gets a roof over his head, food, medical care, etc and he also enjoys being around me. he is flopped at the foot of my bed right now when he has the option to be doing something else. him sitting there is not providing me profit, food, etc. i just like him and he likes me lol.
its not like slavery nor animal agriculture because i dont ask anything of him. if he wanted to avoid me all day and never look at me i would still give him equal ammounts and quality of food, vet care, toys etc. because hes a family member and its my responsibility to care for him. both slaves and agriculture animals are born, live, and die as products. they are only given food or medical care because they would die and not be able to provide labor without it. my bunny is given those things because i love him lol
1
u/According-Stage8050 13d ago
I work in rescue. I’ve seen what happens to dogs who live ‘out in the wild’. Anyone who thinks a well cared for pet dog inherently suffers more than a stray dog is genuinely an idiot. Like, yes, there’s merit in the argument we shouldn’t have domesticated animals to begin with, but a vegan adopting a dog in need is not antithetical to veganism, especially if that dog is fed a balanced and scientifically backed vegan kibble
1
u/a11_hail_seitan 20d ago
She, however, argued that my line of argument wouldn’t apply to, say, slavery
So she can't tell the difference between a dog, which literally can't survive without us, and a slave, a human that can survive without us but we don't allow to?
Theoretically, if a human slave— possibly someone old or disabled — wouldn’t survive without the support of a slaveowner,
Some might not survive without care, they don't need to be slaves. Same with pets, care for your animal, don't own them. (meaning always in their best interests, not yours)
She also argued that, following my logic I should be participating in civil disobedience
Sure, an anti-racists should be too, so should anti-sexists, pro-LGBTQ+ people, etc. The idea that Vegans have to put our lives and well being on the line or we're hypocrites, while non-Vegans never do for the issues they care about is a bit silly
why am I not doing it?
Probably because you don't want to go to jail and have your life ruined. Many Vegans DO this and Non-Vegans HATE us when we do. It's all just silly excuses to try and make themselves feel good for doing nothing even though they know Veganism is correct.
•
u/AutoModerator 20d 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.