Veganism – Life Loving or Cruelty Free ?

[VGnizm]

This morning on Twitter i read a Tweet that said something like "..Animal meat was meant to be eaten but i disagree with animal farms.. '' . By the time i wanted to find it again to comment directly it was too far away in Cyberspace In any case it did get me thinking as to if we do not eat meat mainly because the meat we would eat was produced in a cruel manner or is it because we don't want to take life away for our food consumption.

So i ended up face to face with 3 key questions in my mind.

One path was what if it is possible to produce ' cruelty free meats '.

Another do we consider animal life to be different than plant life and why?

And finally are we not eating meat for Life Loving reasons or for anti-cruelty reasons?

What if we could raise animals with as much love and attention as we do our pets? What if we are then able to take away animal life in a very compassionate manner? In other words lets assume we could reduce the cruelty in the animal food industry to ridiculously low levels and to a point that would make animal food products to be ' cruelty-free' produce. In that case would it be suitable as food for Vegans or at least for a majority of them?

The other question is about plant life and in how does it differ from animal life. I am not speaking about the obvious details of the difference in the manifestation of the life form but rather at the basic level of life energy. Is there a difference between the basic ' life ' element in plants and the ' life ' element in animals. If yes then what is it? If not ( meaning life as a basic element is the same ) then what are those differing elements in the manifestation of life that change the cruelty impact enough to make it acceptable for plants and not in the case of animals.
And the final question is to better understand if we as Vegans are not eating meats and meat products because of Life Loving reasons ( again why animal life and not plant life ) or because of non-cruelty reasons? Is it because we value life very much and consider preserving it to be a valorous choice of action or is it that we resent cruelty so much and do not wish to partake of it?

I for my part am Vegan for the Life Loving reasons as it fits more coherently in my overall attitude about life in general and i consider eating plants a necessary exception but have not made a decision on the question of life as a basic element yet.

The cruelty issue is in a certain sense very subjective and so to establish levels and norms is difficult. Furthermore cruelty and suffering being associated with certain self-benefits of redemption on one hand and on misconceived interpretations on the other make it more a subject for discord than for agreement.

On this one the sharing can be of all forms, technical, philosophical, ideological, personal .... even plant and animal

#vgnizm @vgnizm vgnizm.com etc.

[miniboes]

What if we could raise animals with as much love and attention as we do our pets? What if we are then able to take away animal life in a very compassionate manner? In other words lets assume we could reduce the cruelty in the animal food industry to ridiculously low levels and to a point that would make animal food products to be ' cruelty-free' produce. In that case would it be suitable as food for Vegans or at least for a majority of them?

You may want to read this: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2583&p=26383#p26383

The other question is about plant life and in how does it differ from animal life.

The most important difference between plants and animals is that most animals are sentient and plants are not. When I cut up a broccoli I'm not inflicting pain upon it or violating its interests in any way. However, when I take a knife to a cow it will suffer and I will be violating its interests.
Another important difference is that in order to feed ourselves with animal products, we need in turn to feed the animals with plants. It's more efficient to eat the plants directly.

And finally are we not eating meat for Life Loving reasons or for anti-cruelty reasons?

I don't know exactly what the distinction between these two kinds of reasons is since you haven't defined them. The answer is probably both.

[VGnizm]

Thanks for the added info!

Do we have facts or assumptions about the broccoli ? Not being clever but genuinely curious!

I did mention that in one case it is the preservation of Life that predominates rendering the other options of taking life obsolete. In the other it is the process and not the purpose that would decide. So they are quite different and even if not defined they are clearly distinguishable.

[DarlBundren]

VGnizm wrote: I did mention that in one case it is the preservation of Life that predominates rendering the other options of taking life obsolete.

'Obsolete' as in 'old'? Why?

VGnizm wrote:
In the other it is the process and not the purpose that would decide.

So, if you are vegan because of 'life loving reasons' you can be cruel as long as you preserve life, but if are vegan because of 'non-cruelty reasons', being cruel is always wrong. Am I right? Could we say that in the first case your goal is to preserve life and in the second is to avoid being cruel?

VGnizm wrote: Do we have facts or assumptions about the broccoli ?

Do you mean if we know whether broccoli is sentient or not?
If that is the question, then the answer is that we know it isn't. It simply lacks many of the prerequisites to support sentience. A brain or a nervous system, among other things. Actually, it is likely that some animals, such as oysters, are not sentient either. Ostrovegans, accordingly, consider it fine to eat them.

[VGnizm]

-Obsolete as in 'not-applicable' since we are not anymore talking about taking life or using animals for food but rather preserving it (them). But i admit it is not the best choice of word on my part as it is ambiguous in this context.

-Again in the Life Loving case the purpose is to preserve life and it ends there ( it is a purpose in itself ). Unless we become too excessively philosophical, or psychological, the idea of ' Loving Life ' includes not inducing suffering (cruelty), at the least not for selfish reasons.
-In the anti-cruelty scenario the issue is no longer preserving life but rather managing the pain inflicting process in converting animals to food; back to the original discussion as to whether the problem is the cruelty of the process by which animals are bred and converted to food regardless of whether it involves ( killing ) them.

-As for the broccoli i would rather keep it open since 'sentience' in a large sense means an ability to feel and sense things. Oysters have protective mechanisms which are obviously triggered by some sort of feeling or 'sense'. Plants react to light and temperature and according to a common belief they react favorably to affection 'green fingers'.

And thanks as always Darl for being there when needed

[DarlBundren]

-Again in the Life Loving case the purpose is to preserve life and it ends there ( it is a purpose in itself ). Unless we become too excessively philosophical, or psychological, the idea of ' Loving Life ' includes not inducing suffering (cruelty), at the least not for selfish reasons.

-In the anti-cruelty scenario the issue is no longer preserving life but rather managing the pain inflicting process in converting animals to food; back to the original discussion as to whether the problem is the cruelty of the process by which animals are bred and converted to food regardless of whether it involves ( killing ) them.

 
Ok. If I understand you correctly, the main distinction is that the first moral framework cares about 'life' in itself, and consequentially considers killing to be immoral, whereas the second is more concerned about suffering and, accordingly, is OK with cows being slaughtered as long as they don't suffer. Have I misinterpreted you?

I think that many of us here would lean more towards the latter category, considering the former to be too dogmatic or deontological, if you will. The problem with the first framework is that there could be situations in which taking a life appears to be the most ethical thing to do. Consider, for example, the famous trolley problem.

Wikipedia says:
The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

- Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
- Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the most ethical choice?

Now, if you take a deontological attitude you may find yourself unable to pull that lever, since you believe that life is all that matters and killing someone can never be a good solution. On the other hand, if you lean towards a more consequantial approach, you may want to consider the overall amount of suffering and decide that pulling a lever is, after all, the best, albeit painful, decision you have got.

There are many different forms of consequentialism, but, as the name suggests, they all care about consequences rather than 'rules' or 'laws' (or even dogmas, if we are talking about a religion).

Going back to your original dilemma, my response would be that even if we were able to painlessly kill a cow, there would still be other factors to keep into consideration. The cow's interest in living a longer life or our collective interest in slowing down climate change, just to name a few. In everyday life we can usually decide to eat something else and veganism, therefore, would seem to be a much more elegant and ethical solution to the problem.

Again, I hope I have not misinterpreted your question.

As for the broccoli i would rather keep it open since 'sentience' in a large sense means an ability to feel and sense things. Oysters have protective mechanisms which are obviously triggered by some sort of feeling or 'sense'. Plants react to light and temperature and according to a common belief they react favorably to affection 'green fingers'.

In this thread, Brimstone tries to explain the matter in a more thorough fashion than I previously did. Maybe, if you are interested in the topic, you could start another thread on it.

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2782

I hope this helps.

[VGnizm]

Again thanks Darl.

-You are right! Basically killing in version A and suffering in version B.

-As for the trolley example i do agree that we cannot establish an absolute taboo as to taking life since there are examples of mercy-killing and self-defense and others as well. It is easier to remain on the preserving and caring for life purpose.

-I note that you mention that most would be vegans for the cruelty/suffering version rather than the Life Loving version? Am I correct?

-I had a glance at the Plant pain comments and also had some very enriching feedback on a french language forum for the same post as this published there earlier today by myself. I will collect as much data and probably start a thread if merited.

Thanks again

[DarlBundren]

I note that you mention that most would be vegans for the cruelty/suffering version rather than the Life Loving version? Am I correct?

I was only referring to this forum. I think that many users here regard themselves as consequantialists. Some focus on interests, others focus on pleasure (and pain), but consequantialism is the main ethical framework.

For a short overview of the differences between consequantialism and deontology, you can take a look at this:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-consequentialism-deontology-and-virtue-ethics

[DarlBundren]

It is easier to remain on the preserving and caring for life purpose.

It's unlikely to find yourself in the trolley situation, but the same distinction can be important when it comes to debating other topics as well. Abortion and euthanasia, for example.

[VGnizm]

Thanks Darl; Again

I would like to share a quick, Goolge translation, of 2 paragraphs from the french discussion on the VegeWeb.org forum that i opened yesterday as well. They are both contributed in French by Canastenard and the link is below:

https://vegeweb.org/veganisme-life-loving-ou-sans-cruaute-t22175.html

"
Plants have nothing comparable to the animal nervous system so if they have a consciousness this is not due to this, so can a consciousness emerge from other things such as hormonal activity for example? And if plants are conscious without brain, can we assume that certain biological activities that take place in our body come from a consciousness parallel to that of our brain? Is it pertinent to imagine placing yourself from the point of view of a broccoli stem in order to imagine what one would feel subjectively if one were in his place? Are gas molecules in a pressure bottle "wanting" to get out of it rather than obeying the laws of physics stupidly? I am not going to pretend to answer all these questions but according to current knowledge in biology I think it is justifiable to give more ethical priority to animals than to plants and fungi.
"

- I guess there is room to further look into the subject of Plant pain.

"
Because veganism aims to protect life as subjective and emotional sensations, this way of thinking believes, for example, that it is not moral to kill a cow at age five, regardless of whether it is raised or killed Humanly ", for it deprives her of many years of subjective experience from which she could have experienced otherwise. The life of this cow may have been worth experiencing (especially in comparison with what many other livestock are experiencing), but this does not justify killing it, nor the institutionalization of The slaughter of animals at a relatively young age and therefore have much to lose as individuals who have been born.
"

- It seems to me this is a vote for the Life Loving approach