OYSTERS & VEGANS

[brimstoneSalad]

True, but the ethics on eating oysters seem so flimsy.

How so?

In order to eat something, do you assert that we must have a strong argument for the positive ethical value of doing so? Or is it enough that there is no strong argument supporting the negative ethical value of doing so?
If the former, you'd equally rule out any number of nutritionally or environmentally useless food items that are generally considered vegan and harmless.
You'll also have a serious problem with falsifiability. Hidden sins everywhere... we just don't have proof of them? That's not how science works.
With a scientific world view, you go with whatever has the most evidence, and only if the weight of evidence shifts do you change your provisional beliefs.

So the argument goes, although it's unlikely, oysters may be sentient. But since it's easy enough not to eat them we shouldn't. It's easy enough not to eat any particular food item. We could easily avoid cabbage if we arbitrarily wanted to. But why?

We should be able to present a stronger argument than that.

I think it's easy to argue in either direction.

Well, let's have it then.

I can make an argument against eating oysters, I'm not sure if it's equally strong to the opposition, but it could be equally or more convincing.
That's not saying much, though, since given my rhetorical skills I could arbitrarily convince most people that it's unethical to wear underwear if they didn't spend too much time looking under the hood of the argument. Anybody skilled at argument can argue anything. Whether the logic is actually there in its most bare form though, is a very different matter.

If someone wants to be vegan by the dictionary definition, he/she can't eat them, though.

It depends. Is Veganism an open system of philosophy of minimizing harm caused through diet and lifestyle to other sentient beings, or is it a closed dogma that arbitrarily excludes all animal products and includes all plant products regardless of how environmentally destructive or helpful they are?

https://www.vegansociety.com/try-vegan/ ... n-veganism
While strictly speaking, the vegan society may have the most authority to define the term, it is still a living word and which is NOT a registered trademark, and as such, they don't technically own it (although historical definitions have a lot of weight, common usage and philosophically useful/consistent definitions must also be considered).

I recommend you read these articles, if you have not already:
http://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-e ... d-mussels/
http://sentientist.org/2013/06/15/oystersmusselspt2/

Particularly part 2.

But that def. does not guarantee something is ethical.

Or unethical, for that matter.

Although slipping by unethical things under the umbrella is of more concern, as is the case with palm oil, which is included in many "vegan" products, but the cultivation of which is one of the most atrocious things happening on Earth today. In terms of climate change, the genocide of orangutans, and destruction of the tropical rain forests on a global scale.
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=17&t=818

In this case with oyster I think it can be useful to ask why the f' someone would want to eat them to begin with? They are a disgusting food on several levels (they poop, carry viruses, contain heavy metals, etc). Maybe we need some objective standards on what's disgusting!

Is veganism based on feelings of personal disgust, or ethics? If ethics, I don't see how it's particularly relevant. And saying these kinds of things is more liable to confuse carnists and make them see veganism as inconsistent dogma rather than do any good.

[knot]

How so?

In order to eat something, do you assert that we must have a strong argument for the positive ethical value of doing so? Or is it enough that there is no strong argument supporting the negative ethical value of doing so? If the former, you'd equally rule out any number of nutritionally or environmentally useless food items that are generally considered vegan and harmless.

I go with the latter. Can you give examples of what food items you're talking about in the last sentence? I don't think my brain will be able to parse it otherwise

So the argument goes, although it's unlikely, oysters may be sentient. But since it's easy enough not to eat them we shouldn't. It's easy enough not to eat any particular food item. We could easily avoid cabbage if we arbitrarily wanted to. But why?

We should be able to present a stronger argument than that.

My argument against eating them would be something like that, though I'd add that probability is relevant here. It seems many more times likely that an oyster would be sentient compared with cabbage. It's not the strongest argument ever, but I don't think it's complete garbage either. Having read those 2 articles I do think the opposing argument is stronger, but not overwhelmingly so.

Going by the vegan society's definition, oysters could be viewed as vegan.

Is veganism based on feelings of personal disgust, or ethics? If ethics, I don't see how it's particularly relevant. And saying these kinds of things is more liable to confuse carnists and make them see veganism as inconsistent dogma rather than do any good.

Primarily ethics, but there are other aspects also. I don't view a feeling of disgust as necessarily irrational or inconsistent. Omnivores have to keep a lot of things out of mind in order for their food to still be palatable. If someone makes fun of what I eat, I remind them that they're eating the menstrual cycle that came from a chicken's bacteria-ridden anus. Googling "the top X most disgusting foods" always comes up with animal products exclusively. I don't think this is a coincidence

[brimstoneSalad]

I go with the latter. Can you give examples of what food items you're talking about in the last sentence? I don't think my brain will be able to parse it otherwise

Generally, empty calories. Junk food, that's nutritionally useless or even harmful, and yet incidentally vegan. Growing food that doesn't nourish people is unnecessarily harmful to the environment; that is, at least environmentally useless, if not worse.

There are lots of useless vegan foods that there's no good reason to eat, aside from that they're not very harmful (not in the way meat is), and people like them. Must vegans be complete ascetics, even when an action is comparatively benign?

It seems many more times likely that an oyster would be sentient compared with cabbage.

Even if the probability of cabbage being sentient is zero (it probably is), and the probability of oysters being sentient is non-zero (which is more debatable), cabbage cultivation inevitably still harms insects, which have a probability of sentience of one hundred percent -- that is, that are proven to be (although not very).
Which kills more sentient beings, the harvesting of oysters of cabbage? It's not clear.

When people talk about incredibly destructive practices such as farming cows, it's a bad argument. They're destroying the environment, and cows are known to be highly sentient themselves, and the raising of cows skills more animals per calorie (even insects and mice), even if they're grass fed.

Oyster cultivation, particularly rope-grown, may be a very different matter.

I don't view a feeling of disgust as necessarily irrational or inconsistent.

It should be irrelevant.
Even if we naturally feel disgusted by these things as an instinct, natural isn't right.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

If it's social, rather than instinctual, it's also irrelevant. People may feel disgusted by homosexuals, and that doesn't make being gay wrong.

If someone makes fun of what I eat, I remind them that they're eating the menstrual cycle that came from a chicken's bacteria-ridden anus. Googling "the top X most disgusting foods" always comes up with animal products exclusively. I don't think this is a coincidence

That's fair, but it's irrelevant to the ethics of it. And it should be irrelevant to a rational vegan argument.
Unless you're arguing the case that people are wasting so much energy on rationalizing and ignoring what they're eating it has some other ramifications which are ethically relevant? That may be, but that's not the argument you seem to be making. And if we want to make that argument, it has to be framed in a way people can understand it and won't mistake it for an aesthetic argument.

[knot]

Well its not my fault people are ignorant and don't know any biology, so they end up claiming being gay is unnatural or eating meat is natural for humans. Natural is not always = good, but I think it can be a good indicator a lot of the time. Like how many young kids (i've come across anyway) seem to be more honest and ethical than most adults because they havent been socialized by rest of society to be delusional assholes yet. When it comes to food i think its obvious there are things that humans are universally disgusted by for logical reasons... and I claim that the only way someone could eat oysters is by doing some serious mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about what they are gulping down

[brimstoneSalad]

Natural is not always = good, but I think it can be a good indicator a lot of the time.

If it is ever true that something natural is not good or better than something "unnatural", then it simply is not a valid argument to claim that something is natural and therefore good.

Again, that's an appeal to nature fallacy.

Like how many young kids (i've come across anyway) seem to be more honest and ethical than most adults because they havent been socialized by rest of society to be delusional assholes yet.

And you're supporting a fallacy with anecdotes.

When it comes to food i think its obvious there are things that humans are universally disgusted by for logical reasons...

That's not obvious. Many people find onions pretty disgusting when they're younger (and some adults too). Mushrooms. Many fermented foods (which are excellent health-wise).
That some people may find something gross is not a valid argument against it.

and I claim that the only way someone could eat oysters is by doing some serious mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about what they are gulping down

Is this claim falsifiable? Can you provide evidence for this?

You could just as well claim the only way men could have gay sex is to do some serious mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about the fact they're putting it in a 'poop chute'. So what? Even if that were true (that it takes mental gymnastics instead of just getting over it like an adult), that's entirely up to them, and they're not hurting anybody else (even if it does hurt a little, it's consensual).

Why is it your business what people do, as long as it isn't harming others?
It's a bad argument, and if that's even part of any argument for veganism, or is perceived by carnists as such, it undermines the credibility of the entire movement.

[knot]

I didn't mean that nature == good by default. It was more of a probabilistic indication of something.. but nevermind. It was probably too farfetched and|or useless

Is this claim falsifiable? Can you provide evidence for this?

You could just as well claim the only way men could have gay sex is to do some serious mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about the fact they're putting it in a 'poop chute'. So what? Even if that were true (that it takes mental gymnastics instead of just getting over it like an adult), that's entirely up to them, and they're not hurting anybody else (even if it does hurt a little, it's consensual).

I`m sure I could find someone who would still find oysters delicious even after knowing about heavy metal poisoning and the various diseases you can get from eating them, but i think most people will find them very unappealing|disgusting when all facts are on the table and, would choose to eat something else. I didnt mean to say that oysters appearance, texture and function are the main factors why some find them disgusting.. (but those factors dont make things better either). I don`t think it is similar to gay sex. A) gays dont have another option anyway, and (afaik) would feel very bad if forced to straight sex. I doubt anyone will get a depression from being denied oysters. B) gays arent causing themselves harm, assuming they take the necessary precautions. I cant see how you could make oysters harmless to eat. You could boil them to get rid of dirt and potential viruses, but then you still got the heavy metals, and Im gonna assume oysters are very insulinogenic and carcinogenic like animal protein tends to be.

Why is it your business what people do, as long as it isn't harming others?

If i sincerely thought eating bone marrow was some kind of healthy aphrodisiac I would also like someone to tell me I`m stupid. If a mother insists on eating 30 raw oysters a day, shouldnt we say something? I dont see how a persons lifestyle choices can exist in a vacuum..

To be honest, meateaters will only be further confused if they see vegans eat oysters.. Its already hard enough as it is to get them to understand the differences between plants and animals. Maybe in an ideal world there could be time for more nuance, but time is running out too fast so I dont mind all the intellectual shortcuts people like Gary Yaroufsky tend to take

[brimstoneSalad]

I`m sure I could find someone who would still find oysters delicious even after knowing about heavy metal poisoning and the various diseases you can get from eating them, but i think most people will find them very unappealing|disgusting when all facts are on the table and, would choose to eat something else.

That's fine, but it probably shouldn't be represented as a vegan issue any more than processed foods are represented as a vegan issue. It's the equivalent of junk food, and that's it -- unless you condemn plant based junk food in the same breath.

There's plenty of plant based junk food out there that's terrible for you too.
We should avoid confusing ethical argument for appeals to self interest.

If i sincerely thought eating bone marrow was some kind of healthy aphrodisiac I would also like someone to tell me I`m stupid. If a mother insists on eating 30 raw oysters a day, shouldnt we say something? I dont see how a persons lifestyle choices can exist in a vacuum.

If you can say it in the context of health, in the same way you'd warn somebody off soft drinks and fried food, sure.

To be honest, meateaters will only be further confused if they see vegans eat oysters.. Its already hard enough as it is to get them to understand the differences between plants and animals. Maybe in an ideal world there could be time for more nuance, but time is running out too fast so I dont mind all the intellectual shortcuts people like Gary Yaroufsky tend to take

They're already confused by vegans eating mock meats.

If they asked about Oysters, that would be unlikely to confuse them more, but rather clarify the ethical position for them, and show them it's not a mater of dogma.

[zeello]

I personally think things like oysters and clams are ok or at least debatable. Same with honey. However I often avoid these products purely as an act of solidarity with vegans. Becuse afer all if buying these products means I'm no longer a vegan, then I have no choice but to avoid them solely to keep my vegan membership card so to speak.

By all means, educate me if you disagree.

[brimstoneSalad]

Same with honey.

Well, bees are sentient, and honey has no redeeming nutritional qualities. I think the argument to eat crickets is better (crickets being less intelligent than bees, and having a higher nutritional quality compared to honey).

That said, small insects are only marginally sentient, so I don't take much issue with people eating them. It's also much better for the environment to eat insect protein compared to other animal products. Honey production, on the other hand, I do not believe is better for the environment, and I expect has quite a bit to do with Colony Collapse.
We need bees to pollinate our flowers and produce a lot of crops, so anything that threatens them I take as a serious problem, particularly when it's completely unnecessary like Honey harvesting.

However I often avoid these products purely as an act of solidarity with vegans. Becuse afer all if buying these products means I'm no longer a vegan, then I have no choice but to avoid them solely to keep my vegan membership card so to speak.

Well, you could call yourself a bivalvegan, an ostrovegan, an oyster-vegan, a sentientist, etc. without a problem.

And there's a substantial argument for considering them to be vegan, to make veganism less dogmatic and emphasize the consistency of its moral premises.
I wouldn't necessarily make the argument for eating them, though. I wouldn't want to eat them, and I don't think there's any compelling health reason to eat these things.

[Neptual]

Well, bees are sentient, and honey has no redeeming nutritional qualities. I think the argument to eat crickets is better (crickets being less intelligent than bees, and having a higher nutritional quality compared to honey).

While honey has no redeeming nutritional qualities neither do Oreos, or Doritos but vegans and non vegans alike still enjoy them. Because it doesn't have any nutritional qualities therefore we shouldn't eat it is a bad argument.

As for the Colony Collapse there is no proof that the harvesting of honey is directly correlated in that process. Correlation does not equal causation. It does not matter what you 'expect' but rather what is backed and supported by evidence which in this instance there is none for.