Philosophical Vegan Forum

Vegan doctrine forbids the consumption of shellfish on the basis that they are animals and therefore should not be "exploited" or "harmed"...or some other ad-hoc explanation and plant crops are given as an alternative. Yet plant cultivation requires the mass killing of huge numbers of insects, both by the use of insecticides and them simply being present on the crops and subsequently dying........and shellfish and insects have similar cognitive capacities (which is to say, not much beyond innate behavior). So here we have two foods both killing animals with similar qualities but one is forbidden and the other is not by vegan doctrine.

I'm not sure if you'll find anybody to disagree with you, but I don't really think that's "the" vegan position. I don't think there are many people here who are anti-oyster on ethical grounds, it's just a position of some vegans (the more deontological and radical, usually).

There are legitimate health reasons not to eat oysters, but in terms of rope grown oysters not many environmental or animal ethics reasons to avoid them.

That's why there are ostrovegans or bivalvegans. We have a few here. I prefer maintaining the distinction between a purely "plant based" veganism and ostrovegan/bivalvegan in practical terms, but ethically there's probably no distinction. Just like we should have a distinction between vegan and freegan. They refer to different habits and practices, but that doesn't mean one is more or less ethical than the other.

My question wasn't about oysters but instead shellfish as a whole......but clearly vegans disagree because shellfish are forbidden by vegan doctrine and you won't be considered vegan if you consume shrimp, lobster, etc.

So why is this inconsistent position maintained by veganism? I mean....I know the answer....I was just hoping a vegan could actually try to make sense of their doctrine.

user_id wrote:My question wasn't about oysters but instead shellfish as a whole......but clearly vegans disagree because shellfish are forbidden by vegan doctrine and you won't be considered vegan if you consume shrimp, lobster, etc.

So why is this inconsistent position maintained by veganism? I mean....I know the answer....I was just hoping a vegan could actually try to make sense of their doctrine.

I just want to point out that there simply is no such thing as "the" vegan position of "the" vegan doctrine. Veganism has no leader, no book of rules and doctrines, or an organizational structure. It may very well be that many vegans, or even the majority of vegans, hold the position you find to be inconsistent. That does not make it the vegan position.

"Why do many vegans hold this position?" is a less loaded question. My guess is that it's because many vegans subscribe to deontology, and it's simply easier to say "no animal products" than "no animal products except bivalves and maybe other shellfish".

miniboes wrote: I just want to point out that there simply is no such thing as "the" vegan position of "the" vegan doctrine. Veganism has no leader, no book of rules and doctrines, or an organizational structure.

Of course there is, veganism was created by Donald Watson and further developed by the Vegan Society and this is the doctrine that vegans follow today. Furthermore there is plenty of organizational structure both from the start and today, for one, the Vegan Society still exists and is still a vary active force in veganism. But there are a variety of other vegan groups as well.

miniboes wrote: "Why do many vegans hold this position?" is a less loaded question. My guess is that it's because many vegans subscribe to deontology, and it's simply easier to say "no animal products" than "no animal products except bivalves and maybe other shellfish".

Not sure why you think its loaded.....but if that is the answer than that is pathetic. An ethical theory shouldn't be determined what is easier to say.

So then what is the ethical basis for veganism and how does it make sense of the avoidance of shellfish?

user_id wrote:

miniboes wrote: I just want to point out that there simply is no such thing as "the" vegan position of "the" vegan doctrine. Veganism has no leader, no book of rules and doctrines, or an organizational structure.

Of course there is, veganism was created by Donald Watson and further developed by the Vegan Society and this is the doctrine that vegans follow today.

So because the first person to put a name to the idea had a specific way to follow said doctrine, everyone else must follow it exactly as he proposed? That makes as much sense as religious people who are Christian all following and interpreting the belief in the same way. (Spoiler, they don't)

user_id wrote: Not sure why you think its loaded.....but if that is the answer than that is pathetic. An ethical theory shouldn't be determined what is easier to say.

Hmm, you could have said "I disagree with your response because it doesn't seem to answer my question", but going the dick-head route and calling it pathetic is another way. Just as I could be a dick-head and point out that you made several grammatical errors in both sentences, so if you are trying to come off as smarter than those with which you disagree, perhaps you should think about what they and yourself say. I'm done being a dick-head if you are as well.

user_id wrote:So then what is the ethical basis for veganism and how does it make sense of the avoidance of shellfish?

I'm not a Vegan, but I believe the main reason behind being Vegan is to reduce suffering of other creatures. Even if you are not a Vegan, I don't see how people not wanting to cause an animal to suffer is a bad thing. As far as avoiding shellfish, most of the Vegans here don't have a problem with it, since shellfish have such a primitive nervous system they don't feel pain. Some Vegans just refuse to eat them because they are an animal, but some Vegans also refuse to eat any plant that you have to kill to consume, and only eat fruits that you can eat without killing the plant. (I believe those are referred to as "Fruitarians", but most rational Vegans see them as well-meaning but silly.)

PsYcHo wrote: So because the first person to put a name to the idea had a specific way to follow said doctrine, everyone else must follow it exactly as he proposed? That makes as much sense as religious people who are Christian all following and interpreting the belief in the same way. (Spoiler, they don't)

No and I never suggested such.....doctrines can change over time. But veganism hasn't changed much since it was created, today it is still a boycott centered around the avoidance of a class of products (and activities) deemed non-vegan and the class of products is more or less the same.

But contrary to what was suggested, there was a founder and the doctrine was both created by an organized group and is still maintained by organized groups...including the founding group.

PsYcHo wrote: Hmm, you could have said "I disagree with your response because it doesn't seem to answer my question", but going the dick-head route and calling it pathetic is another way.

You're probably right....I could have said it better. But as you're showing, the "dick-head route" seems well established here...... I was calling a particular idea pathetic....you're trying to attack me personally and your basis for doing such is, in fact, well....pathetic

And calling ideas pathetic is where I draw the line....you won't find me trying to insult people personally because they say something I find silly or because I disagree with them.

PsYcHo wrote: I'm not a Vegan, but I believe the main reason behind being Vegan is to reduce suffering of other creatures. Even if you are not a Vegan, I don't see how people not wanting to cause an animal to suffer is a bad thing. As far as avoiding shellfish, most of the Vegans here don't have a problem with it, since shellfish have such a primitive nervous system they don't feel pain.

Yes, and my comment in the OP addressed this line of thinking. But the second part is precisely the issue, if you don't have any issue with consuming shell-fish than why are you calling yourself vegan? The definition of vegan both in the dictionary and by common vegan groups precludes the consumption of shell-fish.....so why would anybody that doesn't agree with this position still associate with veganism?

So there are two issues depending on your perspective. If you agree with vegan doctrine here....why? How do you justify it? If you don't and call yourself vegan....why?

user_id wrote:

PsYcHo wrote: So because the first person to put a name to the idea had a specific way to follow said doctrine, everyone else must follow it exactly as he proposed? That makes as much sense as religious people who are Christian all following and interpreting the belief in the same way. (Spoiler, they don't)

No and I never suggested such.....doctrines can change over time. But veganism hasn't changed much since it was created, today it is still a boycott centered around the avoidance of a class of products (and activities) deemed non-vegan and the class of products is more or less the same.

user_id wrote:

miniboes wrote: I just want to point out that there simply is no such thing as "the" vegan position of "the" vegan doctrine. Veganism has no leader, no book of rules and doctrines, or an organizational structure.

Of course there is, veganism was created by Donald Watson and further developed by the Vegan Society and this is the doctrine that vegans follow today.

I may have misinterpreted this, but is sounds like you are suggesting that all Vegans follow the same doctrine.

user_id wrote:

PsYcHo wrote: Hmm, you could have said "I disagree with your response because it doesn't seem to answer my question", but going the dick-head route and calling it pathetic is another way.

You're probably right....I could have said it better. But as you're showing, the "dick-head route" seems well established here...... I was calling a particular idea pathetic....you're trying to attack me personally and your basis for doing such is, in fact, well....pathetic

I don't believe I called you personally a dick-head, I just pointed out you were going the dick-head route, not countering the argument, just calling it pathetic. (But I can totally be a dick-head myself, and stated (and proved) as much. )

user_id wrote: And calling ideas pathetic is where I draw the line....you won't find me trying to insult people personally because they say something I find silly or because I disagree with them.

Perhaps I just took issue with you not directly addressing the argument and going the lazy route, calling it "pathetic". I did imply you were just being a dick-head, but if this line is true then I was wrong. (I'm often wrong, and will admit to it when my argument doesn't hold up. You didn't use an argument, just called MIniboes position pathetic. )

user_id wrote: So there are two issues depending on your perspective. If you agree with vegan doctrine here....why? How do you justify it? If you don't and call yourself vegan....why?

I don't believe there is a "doctrine" here. Just a group of people who don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily These are not the type of Vegans who dress up as cows and call anyone eating a burger a murderer. They just want to make the world a little better by not killing an animal. Why do you see that as a negative thing?

I don't call myself a Vegan because I am not one. I don't agree with everyone here on all issues, otherwise this would just be an "agree with me" site, not a debate forum. My first impression of you was that you were just trying to use a weak argument to justify why eating meat from a cow is no worse than eating an oyster. (Hit each one with a hammer, and see which one cries. ) Perhaps I was wrong. (Despite my own inflated ego, it has happened before)

So if I was wrong and you are seriously interested in learning about this topic, I apologize, but maybe use less inflammatory terms and actually address an argument you disagree with.

user_id wrote:Of course there is, veganism was created by Donald Watson

False; there were several vegan communities long before Watson was even born. As early as 1834, there were vegan communities, they were simply not called vegan yet; just vegetarian or strict vegetarian. Watson coined the word, but he did not invent it.

user_id wrote:and further developed by the Vegan Society and this is the doctrine that vegans follow today.

The vegan society is not the definitive authority on veganism. George Rodger, the current chair of the organization, is not the leader of veganism. He is not the vegan version of the pope. Their magazine, 'The Vegan', is not the vegan version of the bible. It's not organized like that, and the Vegan Society has no such authority as to dictate 'the' vegan doctrine.

I don't know the exact positions of the vegan society, but undoubtedly there will be many things I disagree with them on. If they deem the consumption of oysters unethical, that would be one disagreement right there. That does not make me less of a vegan.

user_id wrote:Furthermore there is plenty of organizational structure both from the start and today, for one, the Vegan Society still exists and is still a vary active force in veganism.

There are organizational structures to vegan organizations, not to veganism itself. These organizations are separate from each other, and free to disagree. It's like saying there's an organizational structure to charity. There are many charities with organization structures, but not one overarching charity that defines rules and doctrines for all charities to follow.

user_id wrote:But there are a variety of other vegan groups as well.

Exactly; there are many vegan groups. And they disagree with each other all the time, because there is no central authority or doctrine.

user_id wrote:Not sure why you think its loaded.....

My choice of words was perhaps not ideal. What I meant to say is that the question you pose in your original post implies that there is such a thing as the vegan position, which is plainly wrong. Answering the question, therefore, doesn't make much sense. I can only answer why individual vegans and vegan groups oppose the consumption of shellfish, not why veganism does. Because veganism doesn't do have a position; it's not an agent.

user_id wrote:but if that is the answer than that is pathetic. An ethical theory shouldn't be determined what is easier to say.

I agree. But nonetheless, it might explain why many if not most vegans hold the position that consuming bivalves is unethical. It's just a thought, and it might very well not be the case.

user_id wrote:So then what is the ethical basis for veganism and how does it make sense of the avoidance of shellfish?

The ethical basis for veganism varies between vegans, depending on what kind of normative ethics they subscribe to. The easiest distinction to make is between deontology and consequentialism. Deontological vegans are more likely to believe the consumption of shellfish is unethical, because they think shellfish, being animals, have certain inalienable rights, such as the right not to be used. Consequentialist vegans might believe shellfish are sentient and therefore avoid them. Or they could be unsure whether or not shellfish are sentient, and decide to not take the risk.

My motivation to avoid bivalves is not an ethical one. I avoid them because a) I believe they are unhealthy b) I think they are gross. I am unsure about whether or not non-bivalve shellfish are sentient, and don't bother investigating it because I would not consume them either way for the same reasons as why I don't consume bivalves.

PsYcHo wrote: I may have misinterpreted this, but is sounds like you are suggesting that all Vegans follow the same doctrine.

There is some variation especially when it comes to motivations.....but ultimately more or less, yes, all vegans are following the same doctrine and that is what makes them vegan. I say *follow* because veganism demands particular actions of the individual, namely, the boycott of "non-vegan" products and activities.

PsYcHo wrote: Perhaps I just took issue with you not directly addressing the argument and going the lazy route, calling it "pathetic".

What argument? An explanation was given why vegans avoid shellfish and, if true, I suggested was pathetic.

PsYcHo wrote: I don't believe there is a "doctrine" here. Just a group of people who don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily

And I'm not sure why you don't believe that......being vegan means you follow particular practices. Yes, to a degree, there is some accepted various.....but not much.

"I don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily" is rather vague.....what is and isn't deemed a necessary act? But if vegans were just a group of people that believed that there wouldn't be a strict code one is suppose to follow to be vegan.

I have no idea why you'd think that the argument I presented had anything to do with beef consumption.