Philosophical Vegan Forum

When walking on the street and seeing a insect slowly crawling to the other side, who doesn't know I'm there, I actually do place my foot next to it instead of on it by just continuing my path. Because it's also not necessary to consume honey and silk, should be enough reason to not do it, right? But I'm still not really convinced it's really that simple.

I really like to think that the more consciousness, sentient and capable of suffering an animal is, the more rights it should have. Really like in a continuum so you don't have to draw borders anywhere. The lesser the pain, the less you should care about it, and vice versa. Using this way of thinking, you can justify eating plants and killing bacteria easily because they are placed so low on the continuum that there is really no question about it (no disagreement here I hope?).

However it does become hard for me to decide what to do with insects, jellyfishes, and other creatures with primitive nervous systems. Sure, you should treat them better than a flower (although we probably don't because we like flowers better), and less than pigs and cows, but what is really justifiable and what not. A really all-or-nothing action like killing is hard to place somewhere in a continuum. So is it justifiable to kill a fly or not?

I'm not really sure if the way I look at it is the correct one to begin with, but I would like to see what you think about this.


Also more concrete questions:

I don't think bees are actually aware of the fact that they're being used for producing honey. Do they really suffer in the process of making honey? I know the story about boiling water thrown over them when not longer needed, and this is something I really would call suffering (since they do feel pain). But if these kind of practices wouldn't be executed, would it then really be morally wrong to eat honey?

I don't know much about silk, but the same things could apply here.

While i think that all animals should not have all the same rights, I do believe that if a being is sentient, it has an interest in not being the property of another and an interest in not suffering. What other rights it ought to have would need to be established. As an example, i don't think dogs have the right to education, but they ought to have the right to not be the property of another and they ought to have their right to avoid suffering respected.

In regards to bees and honey, I would suggest reading the following page which should explain in more detail then I can why honey is not vegan:
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

TheVeganAtheist wrote:While i think that all animals should not have all the same rights, I do believe that if a being is sentient, it has an interest in not being the property of another and an interest in not suffering. What other rights it ought to have would need to be established. As an example, i don't think dogs have the right to education, but they ought to have the right to not be the property of another and they ought to have their right to avoid suffering respected.

In regards to bees and honey, I would suggest reading the following page which should explain in more detail then I can why honey is not vegan:
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

What about animals that are sentient but not aware of being owned and no harm is being inflicted? Are you opposed to every form of ownership because of consistency and the hypothetical question I just asked not being very realistic? Since the reality is that animals will almost always be exploited because of economical benefits, human enjoyment, or whatever else.

Reading through the article you gave about honey, I can see now why it should be repulsive to eat it.

The central question is maybe: are all sentient animals equal, is the suffering of a lower animal as much worth as the suffering of a higher animal?

Volenta wrote:What about animals that are sentient but not aware of being owned and no harm is being inflicted? Are you opposed to every form of ownership because of consistency and the hypothetical question I just asked not being very realistic? Since the reality is that animals will almost always be exploited because of economical benefits, human enjoyment, or whatever else.

How do we determine those animals that are sentient but not aware of being owned or harmed? I think USE without consent, irrespective of treatment is a harm. Would it be harm to a baby if you kidnapped that infant, locked them up in your basement, and isolated them from all media, tv, people, and the whole outside world, yet you loved them, and fed them?? This child growing up would not know what they are missing, so would not necessarily feel suffering, but I doubt anyone would say that the life and liberty lost is a form of suffering.
Im against every form of sentient ownership because it is the most consistent and rational position. Do you oppose every for of human slavery? Do you allow child slavery but not adult? Perhaps people with darker skin are fine to be slaves, but not white? When you start to arbitrary draw lines with serious moral issues, you moral system collapses out of irrationality.

Volenta wrote:The central question is maybe: are all sentient animals equal, is the suffering of a lower animal as much worth as the suffering of a higher animal?

In what regard? In all ways? no. In moral ways? Id say yes.
How do we clearly delineate "lower" animals from "higher" animals? Are you speaking of intelligence? If so, why would intelligence be a barometer of moral worth? Why not the ability to fly unaided, or see well unaided at night?

I think the issue should be: do as little harm as possible. Some harm is inevitable, but take actions in your life that limit to a minimum the direct and indirect harm caused to other sentient beings.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:How do we determine those animals that are sentient but not aware of being owned or harmed? I think USE without consent, irrespective of treatment is a harm. Would it be harm to a baby if you kidnapped that infant, locked them up in your basement, and isolated them from all media, tv, people, and the whole outside world, yet you loved them, and fed them?? This child growing up would not know what they are missing, so would not necessarily feel suffering, but I doubt anyone would say that the life and liberty lost is a form of suffering.
Im against every form of sentient ownership because it is the most consistent and rational position. Do you oppose every for of human slavery? Do you allow child slavery but not adult? Perhaps people with darker skin are fine to be slaves, but not white? When you start to arbitrary draw lines with serious moral issues, you moral system collapses out of irrationality.

Thanks for your feedback. Putting it like this, I can only agree.

I had a discussion with someone about homeless people involuntarily taken of the streets and put into slavery, but treated well and with investment in educating him or her. I rejected it because it does not really matter to me if the person is better off as a slave or not, since I think it's still morally wrong. There are better options available to help the homeless without enslaving them.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: In what regard? In all ways? no. In moral ways? Id say yes.
How do we clearly delineate "lower" animals from "higher" animals? Are you speaking of intelligence? If so, why would intelligence be a barometer of moral worth? Why not the ability to fly unaided, or see well unaided at night?

I'm sorry for being vague. In regard to wellbeing and avoiding suffering (what you could call moral). And with lower and higher animals I meant to say 'better' developed nervous systems versus primitive nervous systems. Intelligence can come with this, but should not be the main focus. Even if it's morally wrong to inflict harm onto animals of whatever form of nervous system they have, does not by definition mean they are on the same level, right?

TheVeganAtheist wrote: I think the issue should be: do as little harm as possible. Some harm is inevitable, but take actions in your life that limit to a minimum the direct and indirect harm caused to other sentient beings.

I agree.

Although I myself am pretty individualistic, I do think that collective wellbeing should not be forgotten and is also important. That's probably why I'm not sure about animal experimentation always being bad. And again, most of it totally is bad. How would you balance individual and collective wellbeing? (And I know I'm kind of changing the subject here)

Volenta wrote: I really like to think that the more consciousness, sentient and capable of suffering an animal is, the more rights it should have. Really like in a continuum so you don't have to draw borders anywhere. The lesser the pain, the less you should care about it, and vice versa. Using this way of thinking, you can justify eating plants and killing bacteria easily because they are placed so low on the continuum that there is really no question about it (no disagreement here I hope?).

Consciousness is not a very useful word; it's too vague, and doesn't necessarily refer clearly to anything. The only sense where it's useful is in the medical sense, related to the temporary state of unconsciousness.

Sentience is more clear, but it isn't an endless continuum.

There is sentience, and there is non-sentience. Sentient beings have at least rudimentary intelligence, and have interests as demonstrated by responsiveness to operant conditioning.

Plants are not on that continuum- they are flat out non-sentient. As are bacteria, and most other living thing on Earth- possibly even most animals (most phylum branches of organisms in the animal kingdom are in question)- also non-sentient.

Sentience is a relatively rare property. It's possessed by all Chordata (AFAIK), Echinodermata, most Arthropoda, many Mollusca, some small Phyla like Onychophora, and a few random samplings from other Phyla (most of which are microscopic, worms, or sessile).

Motile worms and larger sessile or mostly passively motile animals are the grey area- flat worms seem not to be sentient, some species of round worms seem to be sentient. The simplest organism I've read about positive studies on with regards to conditioning is Caenorhabditis elegans (a very well studied round worm), but it's not entirely clear if it's actually learning. That's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

It is only after sentience is established or found to be probable due to apparent behavior and near relatives being sentient that we need to consider other aspects of moral worth (like *what* interests the organism actually has). Without sentience, and animal can have no interests, and so those interests it does not actually possess do not need to be taken into account (though it can still be wasteful to visit wanton destruction upon non-sentient things).

However it does become hard for me to decide what to do with insects, jellyfishes, and other creatures with primitive nervous systems. Sure, you should treat them better than a flower (although we probably don't because we like flowers better), and less than pigs and cows, but what is really justifiable and what not. A really all-or-nothing action like killing is hard to place somewhere in a continuum. So is it justifiable to kill a fly or not?

I don't think jellyfish are sentient. Insects usually are (at least big ones are)- their nervous systems actually aren't all that primitive.

Whether killing is justifiable or not depends on the consequences of that killing, not merely whether the thing is sentient. Killing a being that does not want to die is just one morally negative component of the overall consequence.

It isn't justifiable to kill a fly for no reason. It is justifiable to kill a human for a very good reason.

So, it depends what your justification is, and if it's commensurate with the wrong being done (by avoiding a greater harm, or doing a much greater good), and if it is permissible within the context of social contract.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: How do we determine those animals that are sentient but not aware of being owned or harmed?

This is an empirical matter, not a philosophical one- and not a matter beyond reach.
Animals that typically live in a small area (like fish that live in small fresh water bodies or estuaries) can easily be owned in a comparable environment without ever facing limitations they wouldn't face in their natural habitats- it's fairly safe to assume they will not suffer undue stress from this.

Stress in itself can be empirically observed by animal behavior and condition.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: I think USE without consent, irrespective of treatment is a harm.

This kind of reasoning only works within a deontological system- but deontology is logically invalid, so you're going to run into all kinds of contradictions with this one, since the foundation is faulty.
I feel like one of the problems of why people reject veganism, sometimes, is perceived philosophical inconsistency.
Consequentialism is the only way to provide consistency- and consequentially, use in itself doesn't guarantee negative consequences.
Use does make negative consequences more probable in practice than positive consequences, which is why we should be against it (just as we must be against jaywalking, because in practice it often causes traffic accidents, even if it's possible for some people to cross safely), but we should make it clear that the practical implications are why it is wrong, not the ideology of the matter.

Would it be harm to a baby if you kidnapped that infant,

This would harm the parents.

locked them up in your basement,

Humans, and other large animals, need more room than that. Social animals need more socialization. This would likely cause direct suffering.

If you built a little village, with enough room and enough opportunity for socialization, then it wouldn't necessarily cause that suffering.

M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" is kind of an example of this.
Aside form their unfortunate lack of proper medical care, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that (or, at least, there are strong arguments that can be made for it).

The chief argument against this is actually more of a political one- which is based on concern over the slippery slope towards facism due to authoritarian social engineering, but which is irrelevant to both non-human animals, and human young children and mentally disabled (since none of them can really participate in government).

and isolated them from all media, tv, people, and the whole outside world,

Again, humans are social animals. Having only one social relationship, on occasion, would likely be harmful.
A healthy psychology requires relationships with up to dozens of people, not a single codependency.

Media, tv, and 'the outside world' at large are not necessarily needed for health and happiness (and in many cases, detract from it).

yet you loved them, and fed them??

That's not adequate for a human being. For less social animals, or smaller animals that do not range as far, it might be.

This child growing up would not know what they are missing, so would not necessarily feel suffering, but I doubt anyone would say that the life and liberty lost is a form of suffering.

When we consider the morality of an action, we must compare it against the opportunity cost. Of course measuring out direct suffering caused by an action is useless- if we went by that metric, it would always be right to kill people painlessly, because it would prevent them from suffering in the future. There are far more extreme examples to be made against a suffering-only metric.

But you're arguing against a straw man, because nobody realistically argues a suffering-only metric.
Life is more than suffering, and proper application of consequentialist ethics compared ALL of the consequences of an action, good and bad, against the alternatives.

When comparing any particular action against inaction, we have to ask: "What would happen if I did not do this thing?" In this case: "Would the child be better, or worse off?"

You don't always have to do the best thing possible, but when you interfere and change something in the world, the results have to likely be either equal or better than what they likely would have been, or that action is a moral wrong.

Suffering in itself it not the sole determining factor of whether an action is moral or not. If you interfere with something that would have otherwise been a happy and fulfilling experience, you are doing wrong. You're sucking goodness from the world.

Im against every form of sentient ownership because it is the most consistent and rational position.

Not really, no. In itself, that's neither rational nor consistent.

In order to be consistent, we have to be against ownership when the consequences (the sum of all good and bad that results) of that ownership are worse than the alternative.
Economics and history together teach us that when somebody is being exploited, those consequences are overwhelmingly bad. It's a slippery slope that has been demonstrated to be real.
This is pragmatic, and rational. This is a good and consistent reason to be against ownership.

Rejecting it out of hand is deontological, and less rational than dogmatic. We can not merely assert that something is wrong without demonstrating it- and an appeal to emotion based on a hasty example (which I hope I've shown was a straw man) is not a rational demonstration of the fact.
We have to have good empirical reasons for rejecting things, or we're no better than theists who make similarly unfounded assertions by appealing to emotion and calling it reason.

Volenta wrote:The central question is maybe: are all sentient animals equal, is the suffering of a lower animal as much worth as the suffering of a higher animal?

No, all sentient animals are not equal. A nearly invisible round worm (on the far edge of the possible reach of sentience) is not the equal of a human being in moral relevance.
It's claims like that which make some vegans look crazy to outsiders- and since they aren't validated by reason, there's no reason to hold them except for political correctness (because for consistency's sake, it forces us to see severely mentally handicapped humans as of lower moral value, and to most people that is an unacceptable idea).

What people need to understand is that there's a difference between objective moral relevance, and application of social contract.

Humans have equal value before the law, because we aren't interested in living in a fascist state that decides our value based on the opinions of a small minority of 'experts' who may decide anything on our behalves- this is a practical and political matter.
Morality is an entirely different matter.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: How do we clearly delineate "lower" animals from "higher" animals? Are you speaking of intelligence? If so, why would intelligence be a barometer of moral worth? Why not the ability to fly unaided, or see well unaided at night?

Because sentience is a product of intelligence (or, more precisely, a particular aspect there of), not of flight or night vision, and it is greater intelligence which corresponds to more broad and deep (crudely, the processing power devoted to it, but also the conceptual depth) interests for a being.
A simple organism has wants, but they are greatly limited in both scope and depth.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: I think the issue should be: do as little harm as possible. Some harm is inevitable, but take actions in your life that limit to a minimum the direct and indirect harm caused to other sentient beings.

That's great, but there always comes a point where you have to make moral choices, where the interests of two sentient beings are in conflict. Without the ability to resolve the difference between the two, no practical moral decision is possible, and we're either stuck in a state of analysis paralysis, or we have to give up on morality and favor arbitrary whim.

I forgot to thank you, brimstoneSalad. Very useful post.

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's claims like that which make some vegans look crazy to outsiders- and since they aren't validated by reason, there's no reason to hold them except for political correctness (because for consistency's sake, it forces us to see severely mentally handicapped humans as of lower moral value, and to most people that is an unacceptable idea).

What people need to understand is that there's a difference between objective moral relevance, and application of social contract.

Humans have equal value before the law, because we aren't interested in living in a fascist state that decides our value based on the opinions of a small minority of 'experts' who may decide anything on our behalves- this is a practical and political matter.
Morality is an entirely different matter.

That was probably what I was confused about, but you're absolutely right.

Volenta wrote: That was probably what I was confused about, but you're absolutely right.

It's hard to separate them sometimes, because there can be some overlap between morality and social contract.

For example, the most serious matter in each of them- like murder- tend to be similar.

However, in social contract, it's only wrong to murder a member of that contract- and not anybody who is disenfranchised from social protection, and unable to negotiate a protected position in the social contract by force.
In Morality, it's just plain wrong to murder- unless it can be justified (social contract doesn't usually care about justification).


As an aside, raw social contract is the closest thing to Randian "ethics", although they're not as consistent as social contract is (they also draw a lot from Kant, somewhat randomly)- but Randian "ethics" aren't really ethics so much as oxymoronic... and that's probably another topic.