Part Vegan Part Freegan? The concept of use?

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I know many vegans dislike freeganism because it knocks them off the top of the morality hierarchy by causing the least amount of harm to animals even with the consumption of meat dairy and eggs due to the elimination of Food Waste found inside dumpsters behind supermarkets, But I have an conundrum.

If you eat vegan exclusively, but you find a box of milk chocolate in the trash and eat some of it, are you still able to call yourself vegan?

Veganism has two definitions:

1. a person who does not eat or use animal products.

2. a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

Which brings me to a huge schism in veganism. Use.

Many vegans believe that the mere act of use is bad, while other vegans (as well as freegans) believe that legitimate humane use, such as eggs from backyard hens, or combing your cats hair and twisting the hairs that fall out into yarn for knitting, is perfectly fine as long as cruelty and exploitation doesn't occur.

I don't understand anti-use vegans, as keeping a pet hen and treating her well, but cooking her egg-period, does not harm the hen. Saying such a thing is bad, in my eyes, is like rallying against the use of children for free labor (cleaning dishes, yard work, mopping, taking out trash, etc). It's more of a symbiotic relationship between animals and people, or between the environment and people.

I saw a post by a vegan that bashed freegans because "Freeganism seems to think that if(sic) the animal’s life would be taken in vain if the product isn’t consumed, yet it assumes that an animal that has been killed needs to be used in order for their death to have meaning"

If an animal is raised and tortured for food production, and that torture and slaughter resulted in a few pounds of chicken, if that chicken is then tossed in the trash where it can't even be composted, than the animal died and was tortured in vain. It's entire existence and the painful life it lived was for nothing, and therefore is just mindless cruelty. It has no other possible meaning to its death or life.

So I personally would probably never eat chicken I found in the trash, but if some Freegan found some chicken breast that was tossed in the bin, I would not consider it "anti-vegan" by the second definition of the word to consume that meat. As doing so will not be giving money to meat and dairy companies to continue their practices, and the results of freeganism actually helps lower methane gas emissions in landfills, helping the environment.

Sorry if it seems a bit jumbled, but what do you all think?

[brimstoneSalad]

I know many vegans dislike freeganism because it knocks them off the top of the morality hierarchy by causing the least amount of harm to animals even with the consumption of meat dairy and eggs due to the elimination of Food Waste found inside dumpsters behind supermarkets, But I have an conundrum.

Well, not necessarily. On a personal level only, it's possible, but not in terms of overall consequences.

The Freegan food supply is limited to human waste, so it's not an example that the majority of society can follow (maybe 10% at most can do that). We make much more of a difference by also living as examples that people can emulate than by reducing our personal impacts.

Also why we should bathe, even if bathing isn't the best thing for the environment.

If you eat vegan exclusively, but you find a box of milk chocolate in the trash and eat some of it, are you still able to call yourself vegan?

Morally, probably. But Freegan is distinct from vegan, so since there's another word for it, I'd opt for that instead (unless it was a one time thing).
Freegan vegetarian, probably.

An important part of word use is also avoiding confusing people, so I try to use the words that fit best, beyond mere technical application.

Many vegans believe that the mere act of use is bad, while other vegans (as well as freegans) believe that legitimate humane use, such as eggs from backyard hens, or combing your cats hair and twisting the hairs that fall out into yarn for knitting, is perfectly fine as long as cruelty and exploitation doesn't occur.

I wouldn't eat backyard eggs, but I'd use them (I'd feed them to a cat). I wouldn't have a problem with a cat-shed based yarn.
"Vegan" has no consensus on these grey areas, so right now it's just going to be a battle for whatever side convinces the most people they're right.
The anti-use vegans will likely lose this one. But if you're consuming animal products (no longer a dietary vegan), using the clarification of freegan-vegan, or ostro-vegan is probably better to avoid confusion. "Vegetarian" has long had words appended to it, and "vegan" will need the same treatment.

I saw a post by a vegan that bashed freegans because "Freeganism seems to think that if(sic) the animal’s life would be taken in vain if the product isn’t consumed, yet it assumes that an animal that has been killed needs to be used in order for their death to have meaning"

That's weird. I'm sure there are some freegans making that sort of spiritual sounding argument, though, rather than an ecological one of waste.

If an animal is raised and tortured for food production, and that torture and slaughter resulted in a few pounds of chicken, if that chicken is then tossed in the trash where it can't even be composted, than the animal died and was tortured in vain. It's entire existence and the painful life it lived was for nothing, and therefore is just mindless cruelty. It has no other possible meaning to its death or life.

That's a bad argument in favor of freeganism, since it's based on a "meaning" the chicken likely has no interest in or concept of.
The ecological argument of consequence is important. In the trash, the chicken will turn into methane (fermented in a landfill), if eaten by a freegan, it displaces other food that the freegan would eat, reducing personal impact in addition to saving it from fermenting.

[Allison-vega]

I have never really thought about this but here is my feeling. I think it's the perception that even if in the dumpster, it doesn't change the fact that it was taken from an animal without it's consent. In that way I think maybe it would make a person still part of the cycle of abuse to some degree. Still it's hard to fault a person for eating it, as it's kind of a gray area.

I suppose the chicken egg depends on your own personal reason for going vegan and your own personal definition. To me, veganism represents no animal products of any kind. That makes it simple for me and others to understand. I also think consuming eggs no matter the circumstances also desensitizes us as it reenforces the association between animal and food. I think people in our society will look for any opportunity to find a loop hole so long as they can continue to eat animal products. I don't see many people wanting to adopt non egg laying hens. Would I criticize them by my personal standards? Yes. However I am also not beyond criticism so I am sure others will judge me by their own standards.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I agree that this is not feasable for the whole of society, as in order to live on food wastes you need food to be wasted. I also agree with the implications of loopholes, but even if it is just an excuse, they are STILL causing less of an impact.

"I don't see many people wanting to adopt non egg laying hens."

Because non-egg-laying hens are rare, it's like finding a healthy woman who doesn't get her period. The reason they don't get male roosters is because roosters are harder to control, loud, and just don't make very good pets in the long-run. Many apartments that allow you to keep chickens won't allow you to keep roosters due to the noise.

Besides, I'd rather have backyard hens laying eggs for people to consume than factory farmed eggs.

[Allison-vega]

I think the fact that your asking about this shows that your questioning the ethics of this. Before you decide completely please read this.

http://freefromharm.org/farm-animal-wel ... ding-harm/

Also what I meant in non egg laying hens who are past egg laying age.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

[Allison-vega]

Happy labels do not make it right. It's just emotional padding. You're still saying, it's okay to use chickens because we give them a nice life. And you're sending the message to the world that it's okay to eat eggs. Ask yourself why do you even need chicken eggs other then taste anyway?

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Happy labels do not make it right. It's just emotional padding. You're still saying, it's okay to use chickens because we give them a nice life. And you're sending the message to the world that it's okay to eat eggs. Ask yourself why do you even need chicken eggs other then taste anyway?

I don't eat eggs and don't like them, as I think consuming animal products is unnecessary in this day and age. But using living beings and treating them right isn't necessarily a bad thing. Is telling your kids to do chores wrong, even if you treat them right? It's using children for personal gain with little to no benefit to the child.

If eating chicken period is wrong just due to use, even if we treat them right, than using children as personal maids for cleaning, yardwork, errands, etc is wrong too.

We can't logically claim that ethical eggs are bad, but ethical chores for children perfectly fine.

[Allison-vega]

I know it seems extreme. I get that, but when you think about it a little bit more you begin to see the problem. It's our human centric, paternalistic/materialistic mentality towards animals. The idea that we humans have the right determine what's best for other creatures simply by our own human set of values. It totally ignores that chickens have their own life purpose unto themselves. We have taken them out of their natural home, the wild, modified them and commidified them like property. We made the choice for them that our way of life was superior by human measures, and therefor it's the okay to do. In other words they are not our children or our property. They never were.

This is the root of what ethical veganism is about. Recognizing that we humans are not the center of the universe and the creatures of the planet do not belong to us.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I really don't see your point. Are you arguing that chickens in the wild have a much better life than backyard hens?

And are you just sweeping the "children treated as free manual labor" argument under the rug without even addressing it?

And I certainly hope that you are not saying that modern humans alive today should be accused of actions taken by people who domesticated chickens 9000 years ago, because I despise arguments that take an entire group and lump them together as perpetrators of a crime that only a handful committed.

Veganism is about reducing suffering done to animals, it's not about regarding pet cats as unethical by nature.