206
Gotta have my bacon (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
265 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 months ago (6 children)

But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Actually, counter-intuitively, strict veganism would objectively increase animal suffering if authentic alternatives exist. Which they do. But they are admittedly not easy to find. Ethical farms do exist, and typically self-regulate and self-support by selling the products the animals produce. Wool clothes, free-range eggs, end-of-life meat, excess milk & honey, etc. If your only 2 options are torture products, or nothing, then yes I 100% agree that veganism would be the correct choice. Between these 3 options though, giving your money to an ethical farmer objectively increases the livelihood of the animals under its care, more so than complete avoidance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    The way I see it, the tiny fraction of meat that's produced ethically should go to the tiny fraction of people with dietary restrictions that require meat.

    The vast majority of people are not going out to investigate small farms to see if their practices are ethical. They are buying meat from a grocery store, and if they consider it at all, they might pick one with a label slapped on like "organic," completely meaningless thanks to lobbying.

    Practically speaking, it is almost always a choice between torture products and nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    That's an argument for vegetarianism, not veganism. What about wool, honey, milk, eggs. And different countries have different mechanisms. Using the USA as a basis, is admittedly a bad example.

    Here in Germany, there are very strict regulations on how living conditions can be claimed, ranging from 1(literal torture) to 5(outdoor access, pasture raised etc.) I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but I can't agree that it's impossible and pointless to try when there are places actively trying and actively supporting l.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What about wool, honey, milk, eggs.

    Again, it's a matter of whether you're looking at things in the abstract, or in terms of how things actually work.

    Take eggs for example. Eggs aren't just a byproduct of having chickens around, there are specific breeds that are dedicated to egg-laying. Because only a small number of males are needed for reproduction, most male chicks are put on a conveyor and ground to death. While I can't claim to be an expert in German laws, I did find that German courts have allowed this practice.

    It's a similar story with milk. Because dairy cows are a different breed, male calves are typically slaughtered at birth. Dairy cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, suffer the stress of being separated from their young, and are killed as soon as the milk slows down, typically a quarter of their natural lifespans. Dairy is also similarly bad for the environment as beef, and there are widely available plant-based substitutes like oat milk that taste just as good, if not better.

    No matter what animal product we're talking about, maximization of profits is almost always going to involve cruelty, environmental harm, and selective breeding to the point that any expectations about natural by-products aren't true. Even with regulations (which can be difficult to enact effectively), there are tradeoffs: limiting cruelty can increase environmental impact (as well as the price). If animal products were appropriately priced based on offsetting the harm they cause, they would be unable to compete against plant-based alternatives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

    Yes, I agree that factory farming is horrific. Yes, I agree that people should eat less meat. Yes, I agree people need to be more aware of where their products come from.

    However, just because you neighbor beats his dog doesn't mean everyone does.

    And I repeat the same question I ask every time. Are you universally against ALL forms of animal domestication and husbandry? Eg. A small hobby farm that keeps a few chickens for eggs, and a few goats for milk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

    Yes, because that's what 99% of the decisions of 99% of people involve. Just because it's theoretically possible to imagine a situation where these things are done ethically doesn't mean that's actually an option that is practically available.

    I am not particularly interested in criticizing small farms with relatively ethical practices. My position, from my original comment, is, "But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?"

    Is there a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to kill an innocent person?Suppose some space aliens say they'll destroy the world with a giant laser if you don't. That hypothetical does not change the fact that not killing innocent people is still a good general rule in the vast majority of situations you'll actually encounter in life. To throw out all reservations against murder just because of that hypothetical would be making a rule from the exception.

    Likewise, I'm sure you can imagine a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to consume animal products, but unless that situation is an actual, real thing in your life, that you've looked into to verify is the case (which the example of eggs in Germany makes me skeptical of), then what you're doing is throwing out a generally good rule based on an unrealistic hypothetical, just because following the rule would be inconvenient.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent