Difference between revisions of "Ostroveganism or Bivalveganism"
(Created page with "Is not eating oysters because they are possibly sentient an appeal to ignorance fallacy? Does the burden of proof rest with someone claiming oysters are not sentient, or with...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Is not eating oysters because they are possibly sentient an appeal to ignorance fallacy? | + | Ostroveganism, also often called bivalveganism (supposedly including a broader set of bivalves, some of which are motile), is veganism plus the consumption of these simple brainless animals with only primitive ganglia on the presumption that they are not sentient. |
| − | Does the burden of proof rest with someone claiming oysters are not sentient, or with somebody claiming they are? | + | The Philosophical Vegan community doesn't endorse or condemn the practice. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Is not eating oysters because they are possibly sentient an appeal to ignorance fallacy?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | A typical example of an appeal to ignorance fallacy is: "We don't know X about the universe, therefore god exists and is responsible" It's a jump from an unknown to a known. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Appealing to ignorance in itself as a reason to do or not do something without making any knowledge claims that are supposed to deductively follow it isn't an appeal to ignorance fallacy. | ||
| + | In situations where something is unknown it is not unreasonable to err on the side of avoiding an action that might cause harm -- this is the basis of the precautionary principle. That is, if the alternative doesn't come with those issues. Oysters are more complicated, because the harm benefit assessment within the bounds of our knowns and unknowns giving them the greatest benefit of the doubt may not justify the precautionary principle. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Common arguments in favor of eating oysters are: | ||
| + | *If they are sentient, they are barely sentient so the harm risk if very low and must be weighed against benefits | ||
| + | *The harm may be less than that per gram of protein than vegan land agriculture because rope grown oyster harvesting is to environmentally benign or even beneficial | ||
| + | |||
| + | The points regarding the benefits of oysters and harms of land agriculture are not clear or uncontroversial enough that reasonable people can't disagree on them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Does the burden of proof rest with someone claiming oysters are not sentient, or with somebody claiming they are?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The burden of proof remains unchanged, the precautionary principle merely speaks to action when we don't have proof; it's the idea that we are reckless to act in ways that may harm when something is unknown. | ||
Revision as of 08:51, 5 June 2022
Ostroveganism, also often called bivalveganism (supposedly including a broader set of bivalves, some of which are motile), is veganism plus the consumption of these simple brainless animals with only primitive ganglia on the presumption that they are not sentient. The Philosophical Vegan community doesn't endorse or condemn the practice.
Is not eating oysters because they are possibly sentient an appeal to ignorance fallacy?
A typical example of an appeal to ignorance fallacy is: "We don't know X about the universe, therefore god exists and is responsible" It's a jump from an unknown to a known.
Appealing to ignorance in itself as a reason to do or not do something without making any knowledge claims that are supposed to deductively follow it isn't an appeal to ignorance fallacy. In situations where something is unknown it is not unreasonable to err on the side of avoiding an action that might cause harm -- this is the basis of the precautionary principle. That is, if the alternative doesn't come with those issues. Oysters are more complicated, because the harm benefit assessment within the bounds of our knowns and unknowns giving them the greatest benefit of the doubt may not justify the precautionary principle.
Common arguments in favor of eating oysters are:
- If they are sentient, they are barely sentient so the harm risk if very low and must be weighed against benefits
- The harm may be less than that per gram of protein than vegan land agriculture because rope grown oyster harvesting is to environmentally benign or even beneficial
The points regarding the benefits of oysters and harms of land agriculture are not clear or uncontroversial enough that reasonable people can't disagree on them.
Does the burden of proof rest with someone claiming oysters are not sentient, or with somebody claiming they are?
The burden of proof remains unchanged, the precautionary principle merely speaks to action when we don't have proof; it's the idea that we are reckless to act in ways that may harm when something is unknown.
