Philosophical Vegan Forum

Today it came to mind to think a little bit more about certain natural attitudes i have been living with all of my life so far and to question them in view of my new Vegan perspective on life.

So i was remembering documentaries i saw about wildlife and where often there are scenes of animals feeding on others in a rather brutal and shocking manner. A Snake swallowing a Mouse, A Tiger eating a baby Deer for the more emotionally brutal scenes and also seeing a Lizard swallow a Fly or a Spider eating a trapped Mosquito etc. I made 2 observations. One is that once the emotional shock of the scene is over i ethically accept the event as a natural process and further that the scene of the Lizard and the Fly has much less of an emotional impact than that of the Tiger and Deer.

Is it because i naturally accept the survival of the fittest law of nature? Do i feel less for the Fly than the Deer because i relate less to it or perhaps because i dislike Flies? So if that is the case then are my personal ethics skewed by my personal sentiments? All of those questions seem to be silly but they suddenly have more meaning when i apply this same attitude to my ideas about Social Justice.

If it is OK for the Fly then is the same OK for a human being that i consider inferior intellectually or physically or financially? Worse is it OK for those that i dislike for one reason or another. And yet again can i accept being exploited by a wealthier or more knowledgeable person simply because i accepted survival of the fittest as a natural law? Many questions that lead to far away places in my mind. I do not pretend to have an easy answer and would appreciate receiving views about this but i will conclude by saying that i deeply appreciate the Vegan attitude about this in that it makes no distinction between a bee and a cow as regards exploiting animal life.

There could be a variety of reasons as to why you accept the existence of suffering in nature. Perhaps it's just because it's distant and far away from you, and you don't feel responsible for it because it's animal-on-animal predation. Perhaps you just see the process as being "natural", though that doesn't necessarily mean that you accept survival of the fittest.

Though, you say that the lizard and the fly has less of an emotional impact than the tiger and the deer: that's probably due to your personal dislike of flies, yes.

I think it's true that people's biases and emotional sentiments often prevent them from considering wild-animal suffering, and particularly the existence of potential insect suffering, to be important. In my view, people should try to overcome these biases.

Vgnizm wrote: Is it because i naturally accept the survival of the fittest law of nature? Do i feel less for the Fly than the Deer because i relate less to it or perhaps because i dislike Flies? So if that is the case then are my personal ethics skewed by my personal sentiments? All of those questions seem to be silly but they suddenly have more meaning when i apply this same attitude to my ideas about Social Justice.

We tend to empathize more with animals that show their feelings in a way that we find immediately recognizable. There was no evolutionary reason for people to care about animals different from themselves (and, thus, that were probably not part of their own group). I don't think it is necessarily a matter of liking or disliking them. I don't dislike fish, but I know that I tend to care more about baby pigs. And that, despite the fact that I know perfectly well that fish are capable of suffering and don't like to be pulled out of the water. Of course, considering something to be right only because it is natural is not philosophically defensible. If it were, we would feel compelled to justify a number of other horrible things too. That's where human reason enters the equation.

Vgnizm wrote: If it is OK for the Fly then is the same OK for a human being that i consider inferior intellectually or physically or financially? Worse is it OK for those that i dislike for one reason or another. And yet again can i accept being exploited by a wealthier or more knowledgeable person simply because i accepted survival of the fittest as a natural law?

Well, sometimes we do accept to be used. If you order take-away, you now that there's going to be a person that is going to deliver what you have ordered to your address. We could say that you are using that person as a means, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that. One reason for that, may be that person's willingness to do the job.

Money and intellect are hardly moral characteristics. A more objective standard is sentience and that is what vegans generally care about. That means that we usually think that a fly Is not as important as a human being because a human being is more sentient. That is, a human being is more capable of suffering, has more long-term goals, a more detailed memory and so on. A human being is also capable of doing the most good in the world. If I save someone, they could in turn decide to save other lives, for example.

Thanks DarlBundren and i do particularly like that:

...A human being is also capable of doing the most good in the world. If I save someone, they could in turn decide to save other lives, for example.....

I am looking forward to your 5-minute hack for vegan coconut yogurt.

If all goes well then it should be enjoyable soon. Just make sure to find high fat content Coco milk. if not then use Coco cream.

Hi Duma,

It already started a week ago!

You can find it and more on the vgnizm.com blog and on Twitter and Instagram #vgnizm @vgnizm.