Probably going to get a dog soon

[carnap]

Carnap is demanding we provide evidence that isn’t necessary. And assuming that a lack of said evidence validates his preconception that vegan diets are unhealthy for dogs (an assumption which the current research doesn’t support) all the while maintaining this false image of the open-minded inquirer “All I’m asking for is simple research!”

Firstly the research is necessary to evaluate the health impact of vegan diets on dog's health. Secondly this comment is rather ironic because I haven't stated any position on whether or not dogs can thrive on vegan diets, I simply asked a question. You're making assumptions and mistaking your assumptions for facts, in reality I have no position on the topic because I'm not aware of any good research on the topic which is why I asked about it.

I provided research, but he ignored it, then shifted the goalposts to demand for long-term studies of dogs “ideally since puppies” (because for some reason 6 months to 7 years isn’t long enough in a study).

I ignored it...yet commented on it? Also since I didn't give specifics about what I meant by "long-term" its hardly "shifting the goalpost" to clarify what I meant.

His worst offense is his flippant dismissal of the scientific consensus of veterinarians on the matter,

Except that there is no such "scientific consensus", there is little agreement as there is little research.

[PsYcHo]

my dog

I'm still curious about what type of dog you're getting!

Irrelevant but funny note, my partner made some "treats" for our dog. They are mainly sweet potato, or peanut butter/banana/oatmeal treats... ..
I'm not supposed to eat them anymore

I'm still going to though. blame it on the dog..

[esquizofrenico]

carnap, I think that the condition you are asking for accepting that giving a dog a vegan diet is moral is ridiculously too demanding. You are saying, either a vegan diet is as healthy as a carnivorous diet for a dog, or otherwise giving it to a dog is immoral. But why stop there? Certainly not all carnivorous diets are equally healthy. What is the requirement? Dog food? Grind meat? Steaks? Are people not feeding their dogs Kobe meat being immoral?

I think that for a dog's diet to be moral it just needs to give the animal a life that is objectively and overwhelmingly positive (specially when considering that the alternative for an adoption dog is being given the injection). So, even when I agree with you that there is not enough evidence right now to know whether a carnivorous diet is better than a vegan diet for a dog, I think the studies pointed by Lay Vegan make a strong argument for it being moral to feed it to a dog.

[carnap]

carnap, I think that the condition you are asking for accepting that giving a dog a vegan diet is moral is ridiculously too demanding. You are saying, either a vegan diet is as healthy as a carnivorous diet for a dog, or otherwise giving it to a dog is immoral. But why stop there?...

Not sure what you're talking about since I didn't suggest nor ask about any moral condition but rather research. Before you can even have a meaningful conversation about whether vegan diets for dogs are "moral" you need to know the health impact of the diet on a large class of dogs over their lifetime.

And you shouldn't stop at vegan diets.

I think that for a dog's diet to be moral it just needs to give the animal a life that is objectively and overwhelmingly positive (specially when considering that the alternative for an adoption dog is being given the injection).

But that isn't the alternative here, the alternative would be giving a dog a non-vegan diet. So if a particular dog food limited the life a dog to just 5 years that would be okay so long as the dog's life was "overwhelming positive" during those 5 years?

[esquizofrenico]

With what I said I am attacking this phrase you said " If vegans what non-vegans to think they are doing something sensible with their dogs I think its important that they can refer to good research that demonstrates that the practice is health promoting". I think that is a condition too demanding and think that the short of preliminary evidence that we have gives reasonable support to say that we are being sensible when giving a dog a vegan diet.

I think the studies by Lay Vegan give enough reason to believe the average life of a dog eating a vegan diet is higher than 5 years, but for the sake of the argument let's say it's that. It couldn't be easier to show it could be ok.

First of all, giving a dog a carnivorous diet cannot be a moral imperative, that is simply out of the question. This is because the vegan will always have the alternative of simply not getting a dog, otherwise you will have to argue that we all have the moral imperative of getting a dog (and why one and not as many as physically possible). So no, the two choices the dog has is either going to live on a vegan diet to the house or dying in the pond. Since a dog cannot make a decision, we need to apply the reasonable principles that we use for children and mentally ill people when making decisions for them. And for this I would argue we need two conditions: 1)Being "self-evident" that the individual will get a huge net good out of me taking this decision, 2) being "self-evident" that I care about the interests of the individual I am making a decision for.

Since I think you will accept that the first one applies to this case, I suposse you would attack the second one. The vegan is not caring about the interests of the dog, because he's giving it a diet for which he has no solid evidence that is the healthiest possible one. Apart from the fact that this could also be said about almost all dog owner's, we can easily see how this would not necessarily imply I don't care about the interests of the dog, because your question does not take into account that there are other interests involved in this problem.

Is it a moral duty to treat a baby with a heart condition? It depends. What is it you will have to do in order to do it, sell your car or rip another baby's heart out of his chest? So if the diet that would give the dog a longer life would conflict with another individual' rights, it can certainly be moral to choose the one that implies a shorter life for the dog. In a previous comment you refer to this in the topic of reducing suffering, I would argue that it has more to do with caring about interests.

And sorry if you thought I was insulting you, that "ridiculously too demanding" was more of a dialectical ornament than a critique to your position due to too much reading philosophy.

[PsYcHo]

Before you can even have a meaningful conversation about whether vegan diets for dogs are "moral" you need to know the health impact of the diet on a large class of dogs over their lifetime.

(I only engaged in this thread to talk about Cirion's new dog, but he hasn't objected to the divergence of the topic, so I'll join in.

I think this is a valid point, and I'm curious. Are there really no long term studies on feeding dogs a Vegan diet? (Since it's me, this is not a sarcastic response/query, truly wondering here.)

I'm even more curious because many dogs have allergies to certain foods. Steroids may help the symptoms, but they don't treat the underlying issues.

For Vegans, if you had a pet dog that had an allergy to non-Vegan foods, would you keep it or adopt it out to someone willing to feed it non-Vegan?

[esquizofrenico]

Personally I would feed it meat. Probably apply the free-gan solution, that given the kind of meat that goes to the animal food industry does not imply much difference.

[carnap]

With what I said I am attacking this phrase you said " If vegans what non-vegans to think they are doing something sensible with their dogs I think its important that they can refer to good research that demonstrates that the practice is health promoting". I think that is a condition too demanding and think that the short of preliminary evidence that we have gives reasonable support to say that we are being sensible when giving a dog a vegan diet.

That wasn't a condition but rather a statement about the general public's skepticism of vegan diets for dogs. In that comment I'm not talking about what is and isn't "reasonable" but the reality of how people perceive vegan diets for dogs. The average person is skeptical of vegan diets for people but they find the idea of vegan dogs pretty outlandish. So if vegans want non-vegans to think they aren't nuts, that they aren't abusing dogs they are going to need to need some strong evidence.

That is to say, promoting the vegan diets for dogs is likely to give people a poor perception of vegans and the only way you could potentially avoid that is by providing strong evidence. But, as can be seen in this thread, such evidence doesn't exist.

And I disagree that the current research would make it "sensible" to give any dog a vegan diet.

So no, the two choices the dog has is either going to live on a vegan diet to the house or dying in the pond.

And why exactly is the option of feeding the dog a non-vegan diet some how not an option? My point is that you're creating a false dichotomy.

Also you seem to be still insisting that I've made specific moral claims about vegan diets and dogs but I haven't. All I did here was ask about research. To say it again, I don't think you can address the moral issues without knowing the impact a vegan diet has on dogs in the first place.

Lastly, I'm not sure how you'd frame this as a issue of "interests". The "interests" of animals conflict throughout the animal kingdom.

[esquizofrenico]

I am not saying you made any claim, I'm just answering this specific question you made: "So if a particular dog food limited the life a dog to just 5 years that would be okay so long as the dog's life was "overwhelming positive" during those 5 years?" No offence, but I have no interest whatsoever in talking how this looks like to other people, you may very well be right. I'm interested in the morals of the topic.

It is not a false dichotomy. One of the possibilities (not getting a dog) is morally justifiable, so anyone could (if he wanted to) force himself to that moral dichotomy. I can say: "Either I eat an apple or I start WWIII", and it would be a morally acceptable action, it just forces me to eat an apple, but since that is not a moral evil, I am justified if I want to set myself to that constraint. So anyone can force himself to the dichotomy (if he wants to): "Either I don't have a dog or I have one under a vegan diet" and do no moral evil. I think you agree with me on this one, but you are just saying that if you force yourself to that moral dichotomy, you must not get a dog (since you briefly say in a message that you don't see how you could justify getting a dog if you are not willing to feed it meat). I disagree.

I suppose you could argue that for the dog there is a third possibility, being adopted by a person that will feed him meat. But giving the huge amount of dogs that are normally sacrificed in ponds, that is more or less like saying: "I will not hide any jews in my truck, because maybe a limousine will come later to pick them up". However, I think that a vegan should pick an "underdog" when adopting, one that looks more likely to not being popular, so he can maximize the total amount of dogs saved.

So we can reasonably reduce the situation of the dog to: "Either I die in this pond or I live an imperfect life with a vegan diet". We have arrived to this situation by the vegan doing nothing immoral, so so far so good.

Look that there is is nothing special in all of this, is very similar to saying: "If I have a child I won't hold three jobs so he can live in a mansion". It may very well be that holding three jobs so your son can live in a mansion is more commendable that only holding one so he lives in a normal flat. Still, I can morally force myself to the dichotomy: "Either I will not have any child, or they will live in a normal flat". Since the child doesn't even exist yet, I will have to make a decision for him, and the fact that there is a third option more morally commendable than the two I set myself into has nothing to do with the fact that I did so morally. Now, the question is whether or not the second is more commendable than the former, so I can decide how I will act.

You have not addressed the main point of my argument in my last message, so it still stands, demonstrating that one can morally take that decision for a dog.

I'm not saying you are in any side in this topic, I just give some counterarguments so my exposition is more logically sound, I'm not saying you would make them.

Finally, of course the interests of animals conflict throughout the animal kingdom, just as the interests of humans conflict among society. Almost any moral decision (at least the interesting ones) deal with a class of individual's interests. So I think that the fact that this deals with a conflict of interests is almost a tautology.

[brimstoneSalad]

Thank you esquizofrenico, for representing the moral issues so well. BTW, it's "dog pound" (not pond, that might confuse somebody), but we usually say "animal shelter" today (not a big mistake, I just thought I'd let you know).

As to public perception or the claims of non-vegans (and other vegans too):

"My veterinarian said my dog's diet is OK and my dog is healthy" is the only reply a vegan should need to give to a skeptic.

Unless that skeptic IS a veterinarian or has credentials equal to or greater than a veterinarian, he or she is being unreasonable in criticizing what the vet said is OK and the vegan wants to do or making accusations of animal abuse. On the moral side, it's worth noting that even IF the vet is wrong, the owner is in the right to follow professional advice because that's what's reasonable. It's unlikely that consensus is wrong at this point given the evidence. However, no amount of additional goal-post shifting evidence is likely to convince such a person with anti-vegan bias (there are still people who deny it's healthy for humans despite consensus).


Is there evidence that more evidence will convince these assholes? I don't think there is, most of them are just making appeal to nature fallacies and have intrinsic biases against veganism. It may be possible to convince them, but probably not with any amount of evidence because these people do not respect science or reason. Emotional appeal is your best bet, if they don't bend to that then I'd write them off and move on. People like that represent an ultra-conservative carnist fringe who are probably not worth the time it takes to engage them.