The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by PsYcHo »

user_id wrote: In fact, you can find cases of slave-labor in fruit picking in the US...in particular in California.
That is true. (Florida also, btw) I assume we both agree slave labor is a bad thing, so at least we agree on this point.
user_id wrote: This is obviously not a serious comparison, are you better than the person that kills 25 rodents over six months to eat?
I didn't ask you about someone killing the rodents to eat, I specifically called him "hammer bunny smasher". I kill rabbits on accident, he kills them on purpose, and in this scenario lets assume he only does it for fun, not food. I definitely think my actions are more moral than his actions. Do you disagree?

If you have to kill an animal to eat, kill the animal. To give you a bit of background about me, unlike most people here, (and I'm assuming you as well, but I may be wrong) I have killed a rabbit by hitting with a hammer, removed it's fur, skin, and organs, and cooked the thing to eat. We were hungry, and humans come first. (If my family is starving and there is no food, I suggest you avoid me if seen walking around with a hammer.. ;) )

The main point I am trying to get across it that killing an animal is worse than killing a plant morally. If you have a choice, and you choose to kill the animal, that is the less moral thing to do. Trying to suggest that it is just as moral to eat an animal as it is to eat a plant because "animals die for crops too!" doesn't make sense to me. Notice my diet is Pescatarian. I eat fish, but I cannot (and will not) try to argue that my diet is more morally correct than eating a Vegan meal. I simply do it anyway, despite agreeing it is less moral. So I'm not up here on some pedestal trying to tell you that you are evil, but I think you are trying really hard to "prove" that you are just as moral by killing animals to eat as people who choose not to.
user_id wrote: I don't think so, in both cases you've decided on a lifestyle that kills 25 rodents every 6 months and you could do otherwise.
So you're saying choice plays into morality?........ :idea:
user_id wrote: So are you morally worse than the guy that just kills one animal (a cow) over 16 years for food? I'm not sure how you'd argue otherwise, do you have an argument?
Killing animals for food is a normal thing. I'm not trying to suggest that people who still do it are bad people. But when you have a choice in the matter, how do you justify saying killing an animal is just as bad as killing a plant? If you believe that animals can feel pain, and some even have the capacity for simple emotions, does it make even just a little bit of sense that maybe killing them is a least a little bit wrong? The rodents I kill are not on purpose, and if I had a choice in the matter I wouldn't kill them. If the man who killed the cow had a different choice to feed his family, he is morally worse.

There is some differing opinions on what caused the Hindenburg blimp to catch fire, but for this exercise lets assume it was caused by a man lighting a cigarette. His actions caused 35 people to die horrible deaths. He did not intend to kill anyone at all. By your reasoning as I see it, he is morally worse than a murderer who tortured only one person before killing them?
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
user_id
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:28 am

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by user_id »

PsYcHo wrote: I didn't ask you about someone killing the rodents to eat, I specifically called him "hammer bunny smasher". I kill rabbits on accident, he kills them on purpose, and in this scenario lets assume he only does it for fun, not food. I definitely think my actions are more moral than his actions.
Right....you didn't but I didn't understand the purpose of such an extreme comparison so I discussed what was more relevant to every day life.
PsYcHo wrote: The main point I am trying to get across it that killing an animal is worse than killing a plant morally. If you have a choice, and you choose to kill the animal, that is the less moral thing to do. Trying to suggest that it is just as moral to eat an animal as it is to eat a plant because "animals die for crops too!" doesn't make sense to me.
"animals die for crops too" wasn't the argument, nor was my argument about animals and plants being morally similar. My argument was consequentialist in nature and specific to the case of shell-fish. If two food items both harm similar types of animals to the same degree....what basis is their to pick one over the other? That is the issue.
PsYcHo wrote: So you're saying choice plays into morality?........ :idea:
Yes, why wouldn't it?
PsYcHo wrote: But when you have a choice in the matter, how do you justify saying killing an animal is just as bad as killing a plant? If you believe that animals can feel pain, .....
As I've been doing in the thread, by showing that similar types of animals to a similar degree are killed in both cases. But, again, the argument was specific to shell-fish. In the case of, for example a cow, you could just deny insects any moral status (but then'd you have to deny the same for shell-fish!).......but you'd still have to show that raising a cow results in less animal deaths than cultivating a crop. Not difficult to do in the standard case since cows are fed cultivated crops themselves and inefficiently convert them into food for us....but not as obvious in the case of purely pastured cattle.
User avatar
Mr. Purple
Full Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:03 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by Mr. Purple »

user_id wrote:The point was that the claim that one ought to follow a vegan lifestyle is a matter of doctrine. Its a doctrine that has its origins in the vegan society.
It's just a bizarre word choice unless you are purposefully trying for that strong connotation of religiosity and dogma, But then you better not get upset with me about using the word torture in the same way for it's strong connotations of cruelty and human depravity. ;)
user_id wrote:Included in what? Its not included in veganism. And veganism isn't about "trying ones best to reduce"....its about following a very specific lifestyle code that was created by the vegan society. You still haven't clarified what it means to "try ones best". Just how much inconvenience do you have to commit yourself to before you've "tried your best"?
But veganism is about trying ones best. I am showing you the very definition that the Vegan Society has on their page about the position of veganism. It clearly says " seeks to". Here is the relevant definition of seek: "to attempt or desire to obtain or achieve (something)". If it actually helps you, you can use "as much as possible and practicable" instead of "ones best", but that seems more convoluted to me. Given that their veganism doctrine is clearly about intent, The only way to do veganism wrong is to not try your best. So a person who still eats cheese but has slowly gotten rid of all other animal products is living true to the vegan society's doctrine as long as that was honestly their best attempt. We can think that this person is lying or mistaken about their best, but so what? There is no ranking system or high scores in veganism. There is no law enforcement in veganism, and there are no rules about verification. To the extent they secretly aren't trying, is to the extent they are not living the holy doctrine of veganism :lol: . Understand yet?
user_id wrote: Yes, most people would claim to be against animal torture and most people would disagree that raising an animal for food is an example of animal torture. You see, that is something you actually have to explain......otherwise its just cheap rhetoric. Torture implies that you are harming something for punishment or because you gain pleasure from hurting them.
It's funny that you can type out the words "or because you gain pleasure from hurting them." and not see how that supports what I said. The main reason people eat meat is because it gives them pleasure. Most of the definitions I have read make it seem like a reasonably accurate word to use. I've fine with replacing the word torture in that sentence with cruelty or abuse though. I don't think it makes it much better. If people claim to be against animal abuse, they ought to go vegan. Do you still have a problem with this?

user_id wrote:No, that was no my argument. I've argued that forbidding shellfish while eating vegetables is inconsistent because they both harm similar types of animals in similar numbers and thus there is no reason to prefer one over the other.
Fair enough, I should have added a bit about the shellfish in the top part of the summary. Once again that's a bit nit picky since I clearly brought it up later in the paragraph, but I guess that's just how you have decided to be.

Regardless, If you don't understand that the position of many vegans, including the Vegan Society's holy vegan doctrine, is mostly about intentions, then the bit about shellfish doesn't matter at all. It then becomes about vegans missing information rather than veganism being inconsistent. If you think that just as much suffering occurs from eating vegetables as eating shellfish, then do some research to prove it, then make a case to the vegan community. True followers of the holy doctrine will then try their best to switch to whatever is less cruel.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PsYcHo wrote: I drive for my job a lot, and I have killed many mice and rabbits that ran under my vehicle. So if I accidentally kill 25 rodents over a six month span, am I morally worse than the person who purchases 15 rodents just to kill them with a hammer? After all, "hammer bunny smasher" guy did kill less animals than I did.
Even if it's not accidental, like if you worked at a slaughterhouse, you aren't doing it by choice because you want to kill them for fun or pleasure (whether sadism or gustatory in nature), but because you need to as part of your job. The consequences for the animals are not better if you don't drive the truck or work at a slaughterhouse, because somebody else will because they are being paid to do so. Always follow the money to its source: in the case of consumerism, that's the core reason why the animals are being bred and killed, and reducing that ultimately reduces death as the industry scales back.

Vegan slaughterhouse workers were discussed in this thread:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2049&p=21351#p21351

A thread where a very confused individual decided the slaughterhouse workers were the real evildoers (the people who are abused and desperate), not the consumers who are driving the industry with their financial support and demanding meat be produced for them (even if they know this; ignorance is very understandable of course).
user_id
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:28 am

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by user_id »

Mr. Purple wrote: It's just a bizarre word choice unless you are purposefully trying for that strong connotation of religiosity and dogma, But then you better not get upset with me about using the word torture in the same way for it's strong connotations of cruelty and human depravity.
I don't think its a bizarre word choice at all, "doctrine" means a beliefs system that is promoted by some group.....and veganism is just that. On the other hand, referring to raising animals for food as "torture" is twisting the meaning of the word for rhetorical purposes. Torture implies some sort of punishment or harm done out of pleasure.

Mr. Purple wrote: But veganism is about trying ones best. I am showing you the very definition that the Vegan Society has on their page about the position of veganism. It clearly says " seeks to". Here is the relevant definition of seek: "to attempt or desire to obtain or achieve (something)". If it actually helps you, you can use "as much as possible and practicable" instead of "ones best", but that seems more convoluted to me. Given that their veganism doctrine is clearly about intent, The only way to do veganism wrong is to not try your best. So a person who still eats cheese but has slowly gotten rid of all other animal products is living true to the vegan society's doctrine as long as that was honestly their best attempt.
You've still not explained what it means to "try ones best", again, how much do you have to do before you can say you "tried your best"? But are you suggesting that someone that eats meat,dairy and eggs can be vegan? I know that isn't something the vegan society would agree with....or any vegan group I'm aware of.

Mr. Purple wrote: It's funny that you can type out the words "or because you gain pleasure from hurting them." and not see how that supports what I said. The main reason people eat meat is because it gives them pleasure.
You're twisting matters again,the meat gives them pleasure....not any harm that comes to animals in the process of producing the meat.

Mr. Purple wrote: Regardless, If you don't understand that the position of many vegans, including the Vegan Society's holy vegan doctrine, is mostly about intentions, then the bit about shellfish doesn't matter at all. It then becomes about vegans missing information rather than veganism being inconsistent. If you think that just as much suffering occurs from eating vegetables as eating shellfish, then do some research to prove it, then make a case to the vegan communi
The vegan society's notion of veganism is very clearly not about intentions but instead following a very specific lifestyle code. Now you seem to be suggesting that vegans, some how, systematically mistaken about veganism......that seems like a strange claim to make. If I did a survey in any vegan community and asked if you can eat (dairy) cheese and be vegan the answer would be a definite no. Is this really something you'd deny?

I've made this case to the "vegan community" before, as well as other cases, but.....no matter the evidence, the arguments, etc....the vegan community is unlikely to change.....because ultimately veganism is a matter of dogma. For example, to this day, honey still remains a forbidden fruit for vegans.....despite it making no sense to avoid. Though, in this case, there are at least some vegan groups that claim that its a "personal choice"......70 years later and only a few groups claim something that makes little sense is a "personal choice".
User avatar
Mr. Purple
Full Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:03 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by Mr. Purple »

user_id wrote: I don't think its a bizarre word choice at all, "doctrine" means a beliefs system that is promoted by some group.....and veganism is just that. On the other hand, referring to raising animals for food as "torture" is twisting the meaning of the word for rhetorical purposes. Torture implies some sort of punishment or harm done out of pleasure.
I disagree that there is a big difference between how we are using the words, but focusing on the word torture is a tangent anyway as I brought up in my last post. The argument was that you have a problem with people saying others ought to go vegan. Since you ignored my question, I'll say again: "I've fine with replacing the word torture in that sentence with cruelty or abuse though. I don't think it makes it much better. If people claim to be against animal abuse, they ought to go vegan. Do you still have a problem with this?"

user_id wrote:You've still not explained what it means to "try ones best", again, how much do you have to do before you can say you "tried your best"?
Once again, this is an irrelevant question since we aren't testing people. It doesn't give clarity to put a number on something like this. Just use some common sense. If a father tells his son to try his best when he goes to his sports practice, are you really saying you can't make sense of that without defining how many 3 point shots or goals are required for it to count as trying his best? Putting a number on something like "trying your best" is missing the whole point of using that phrase.

user_id wrote:The vegan society's notion of veganism is very clearly not about intentions but instead following a very specific lifestyle code.
How do you explain the vegan society's use of the word " seeks" and " as far as practicable" if it's not about intentions? Why wouldn't they have just said something like " veganism excludes actions that harm animals" rather than " Veganism... seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable... Cruelty" . Do you see the difference? How would you explain that difference? Though, even in the first one, I personally would think intentionality is implied based on how the words are used, but we can put that aside for now.

user_id wrote:Now you seem to be suggesting that vegans, some how, systematically mistaken about veganism......that seems like a strange claim to make. If I did a survey in any vegan community and asked if you can eat (dairy) cheese and be vegan the answer would be a definite no. Is this really something you'd deny?
user_id wrote:But are you suggesting that someone that eats meat,dairy and eggs can be vegan? I know that isn't something the vegan society would agree with....or any vegan group I'm aware of.
The questions you are asking clearly don't address the ideas we are debating. The reason you are confused about this is because if you ask the question in a simple form, especially since we are talking about ethics, intentionality is assumed. If I were to ask, "can i eat cheese and be vegan" people would naturally take that to mean "can I purposely incorporate cheese into my diet and still be vegan?". So, you have ask a question that actually gives clarity to the point we are debating. If you were to instead ask the the more relevant question " If a flake of cheese is hidden in a guy's salad, and he accidentally eats it, is he still a vegan?" I think most people would answer yes. Is this really something you'd deny?
user_id wrote: I've made this case to the "vegan community" before, as well as other cases, but.....no matter the evidence, the arguments, etc....the vegan community is unlikely to change.....because ultimately veganism is a matter of dogma
Well, if you made the same argument you just made on this thread, then I don't blame those vegans at all for not being convinced. You're basically just telling us your opinion without any evidence. You have to actually show that more overall suffering occurs from eating vegetables. You can't just state your opinion that you think insects and shellfish are similar, and that some amount of suffering happens in both cases. Right now the general consensus is that vegetables cause less harm than a shellfish diet, and so someone trying their best to minimize suffering is going to choose that.
guitaramole
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:03 am
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by guitaramole »

Im new to veganism, but ill try to answer the question.

Vegans avoid all suffering that is practical and possible. It is not practical for a vegan to starve to death because whatever they choose to eat will result in death of an animal. Vegans can not only survive, but thrive on a diet of plants, and eating shrimp would be unnecessary and possibly unhealthy. The direct consumption of an animal can be avoid, where the indirect killing of an animal in the production of food that vegans eat can't be avoided.

We also can look at the amount of harm done.
With shrimp alone, 3.4 million tons are caught each year with other wild life such as sea turtles and dolphins being caught in the process. If a shrimp weighs an ounce, we are talking about over 10 billion shrimp caught every year.

I dont have the numbers for how many animals are killed producing grains, fruits, and vegetables. Even people arguing against veganism don't have a number, but one estimated millions.

Whatever the number, most grains in the US are produced to feed livestock, so vegans are responsible for significantly less death due to agriculture than someone who eats meat.
User avatar
Mr. Purple
Full Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:03 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by Mr. Purple »

Vegans avoid all suffering that is practical and possible. It is not practical for a vegan to starve to death because whatever they choose to eat will result in death of an animal.
I'm not disputing the substance of your post, but technically, The definition from the vegan society is "practicable", not "practical". This might imply a slightly stricter requirement than just whatever is practical, but it's still entirely justified to say it's not practicable to starve to death to be vegan.

Though no normal human talks like this, If you borrow a car from a friend, and he tells you "be back as soon as is practicable", they aren't requiring you to drive the car off the cliff above the house in order to shave a few seconds off your time. To take it to that extreme would be silly. People that would require suicide from this vegan definition are being just as silly.
guitaramole
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:03 am
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by guitaramole »

Thanks for the correction.
ThunderKiss65
Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:45 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

Post by ThunderKiss65 »

My reasoning for not eating bivalves is the fact that eating undercooked or raw shellfish increases the risk of spreading the viral infection, hep a. Young children, elders and immune compromised individuals are at a higher risk of contracting hep a. An updated Hep a vaccination is a must for any one consuming shellfish. Regardless of pain felt by said bivalves, the risk of contracting and spreading hep a does not out weigh the benefit of eating shellfish. Scientists put oysters in diseased estuaries and then test the oysters periodically to determine the health / disease of the estuary. Oysters are bottom feeders that literally eat bacteria and other harmful organisms in the water. So not only do you run the risk of getting hep a(a viral disease that you can spread to healthy individuals), you also run the risk of eating more heavy metals and bacteria or another harmful organism.



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8609001926

https://www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/ca ... epatitisa/
Post Reply