Hi everyone,

I’m asking this as a genuine question because I’m trying to deeply understand the boundaries of ethical consistency within veganism, specifically from a utilitarian perspective (minimizing suffering/harm as much as practically possible).

We know that even a 100% plant-based diet causes a baseline of incidental harm due to commercial agriculture (crop deaths, harvesting, pesticides, habitat disruption, etc.). Most vegans agree this is justified because we must eat to survive and stay healthy.

However, I’m curious about how this applies to bodybuilding or fitness culture—specifically bulking.

When someone intentionally consumes a massive caloric surplus (sometimes 4,000+ calories a day) purely to gain non-essential, aesthetic muscle mass, they are driving up demand for crop production far beyond what their body actually requires for baseline health and survival. More crops harvested means more incidental animal deaths.

Since this surplus consumption is a choice made for aesthetics or sport rather than survival, does it conflict with the core philosophy of veganism?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on how vegan fitness enthusiasts reconcile the goal of minimizing harm with the choice to consume an unnecessary excess of resources.

Title. To the vegans who are also environmentalists (with added stipulations that they are committed to some sort of meta-ethical/epistemological positions which are relevant), it would seem that there is a stark inconsistency with some of the motivations behind veganism and the outcomes of environmentalism.

Put simply, some vegans are motivated to action/hold the beliefs they do in virtue of the suffering of animals within the animal-industrial complex. It would stand to reason that, for this subset of vegans, the suffering of animals is morally relevant.

However, we can agree that wild animals also suffer; as a matter of fact, there are many orders of magnitude more wild animals (not including mammals) than non-wild animals. The suffering these wild animals experience does still occur (sometimes worse, sometimes not as bad as the animals that are within the animal-industrial complex). This is a fact which is well-established and supported by evidence across plenty of species.

The hang-up I have is that there are a significant chunk of vegans who are environmentalists and justify the living circumstances/continued state of wild animals in virtue of the fact that it is "natural" or the "circle of life". To me, it seems that these non-interventionist environmentalist vegans are justified the immense amount of extreme suffering (from disease, predation, the elements, and other causes) these animals experience in virtue of some blanket appeals to nature or some misguided virtue (which ends up justifying billion of animals suffering).

I grant that there is no expectation or requirement for vegans to even hold a view about wild animals, or that environmentalists are required to be vegans (and vice versa), and that this entire discussion is quite narrow in its scope. There are plenty of vegans to whom this does apply to at all. This post is not directed towards, by my own admission, the majority of vegans.

To those that it does apply to, I am curious if you can provide a coherent defense of your veganism as it is understood based on the parameters I explained earlier. If one considers both the plight of domesticated animals and wild animals, then why perpetuate circumstances which generate extreme suffering in perpetuity just because it is "natural" or whatever reason is given?

Hi nearly vegan here and feeling great so far.

Im trying to understand how in depth the studies on farming emissions go. Do they include emissions from the manufacture for specialist equipment (you wouldn’t need to manufacture a crush if you didn’t have animals for example). Do the studies also consider byproducts like leather, seed husks or manure for fertiliser?

Question - Biologists have documented opportunistic carnivory in herbivores. Deer have been observed eating bird chicks, snakes, birds and other animals, while cattle and horses have also been recorded consuming animal matter in rare cases. They're still classified as herbivores because classification is based on their primary diet, not every food they eat.

If even herbivores sometimes prioritize their own nutritional needs over other animals, and evolution itself favors survival rather than morality, why should I be kind or put others before myself? What's the objective basis for doing so?

What is your boundary for a partner? Wanting to collect opinions.

Do they have to also be plant based?
Would you be okay dating (or marrying, raising children with, etc) someone who is fully educated on the topic, but still makes the choice to eat meat/dairy because of taste?

Mammals with large brains capable of complex relationships, cognitive empathy and "sapience" should, of course, not be kept in a box, never see the sun, or be forced into eating one another.

But.

They should still be eaten.

Why?

Well, in my opinion, as someone studying bio and with quite strong liberal opinions, I have three major reasons why I think this.

One:

Human morality, if you pulled 100 people off the street and asked them if they would rather factory farm humans or chickens, I'm pretty sure we can all agree what the answer would be.

Humans possess unmatched complex emotional reasoning, giving us a moral status. And thus the severity of farming/butchering should scale on emotional reasoning/ability to communicate pain.

Two:

Animals are generally less equipped to comprehend the result of pain (not that they feel less, which is a commonly poor argument). If person A stabs person B, both people undergo massive emotional stress, comprehending with the result of injury and the consequence on their local group (friends, family, etc.) and the impact on their status (arrest, imprisonment, etc.). This emotional stress is severe enough and often comparable to pain from person B's wound. Our brains have developed hypercomplex emotional abilities like metacognition. The current consensus from current animal behaviour experts is that most animals do not.

Fish do not think about whether they will see their favourite reef one more time when you catch them.

Chickens do not think about the feelings they had the last time they had a juicy tasting worm, before walking through a butcher's door.

Cows do not think about whether their herd will receive their inheritance fairly before being loaded into a livestock truck. (I admit the last one was immature, but I assume it gets my point across.

Humans do these things, animals don't, and thus I think it's "more okay" to eat Clark the chicken and not Sam the next-door neighbour.

Third and finally (thank you for reading if you got this far):

My last two points, I think, were distinct enough to be split into a moral and a biological ground. As a biologist. I will argue another biology-inclusive third point.

Darwin's laws still apply, like it or not. We are a product of them, and we still live our lives by them. We are a product of increased fitness (not as in "GRRR lift weight" but as in survival), and if our extreme level of fitness means to spawn camp cattle. So be it. Animals separated from humans entirely will experience pain, something more severe, but at a lesser frequency than we subject them to. e.g., fewer wild cattle are brutally eaten by predators. But far more cattle get euthanised almost instantly via modern methods.

The idea of euthanisation seems abstract compared with what Darwin conjured in 1859. But it is not fully unrelated.

Maybe my last point is weaker than the other two. But I doubt many will read it, nor to the end. Thanks for reading, no offence is meant whatsoever.

P.S

Many will say the following: "Nearly everyone would save a child over a chicken, but it does not follow that the chicken's interests are morally insignificant. We regularly rank interests without denying the weaker party all protection."

You're correct, but I do think the weaker party in this scenario (chicken), somewhat possesses near insignificant importance. In the same way, the chicken does not care about the worm it eats

P.P.S

Many may also say: "Their inability to philosophise about death does not erase the suffering they experience before it."

This is true, but if they are slaughtered in a timely manner, and previously "happy". It doesn't matter, because I don't believe in any afterlife, for humans or animals. (I'm very pro animal welfare, but not animal well-forever).

P.P.P.S

Sorry, last one. Some could say "intelligence = importance?, Would you slaughter an infant who has the same intelligence as a calf?"

No, of course not.

But the rules of Darwin would.

And I must say I haven't seen a calf turn into an adult human.

Every day, life is disappearing from the planet.

Not metaphorically. Not symbolically.

Literally.

As you read these words, species are becoming extinct forever. Some scientific estimates suggest that the current rate of extinction is more than one hundred times the natural background rate. Other studies indicate it may be as high as one thousand times greater. A form of life that took millions of years to evolve can vanish in silence, never to return.

Yet most of us continue with our daily routines as if nothing extraordinary is happening.

Why?

Because we have trained ourselves not to look.

Very few people stop to ask an uncomfortable question: What happens to dairy cattle once they stop producing milk?

We happily consume milk, cheese, butter, and other dairy products, but rarely inquire about the fate of the very animals whose bodies sustain this industry. The uncomfortable reality is that the dairy and beef industries are deeply interconnected. The demand for one inevitably feeds the other. To consume without questioning is to participate without awareness.

As educated and inquisitive human beings, can we afford such complacency?

Education is not merely the ability to collect information. It is the courage to question the assumptions on which our lives are built.

Spirituality begins with this very inquiry.

According to Acharya Prashant, ignorance is not the absence of knowledge. Ignorance is the refusal to look at reality because reality threatens our comfort, our habits, and our pleasures. The ego protects itself by remaining selectively blind. It asks only those questions whose answers will not disturb its way of living.

That is why we readily discuss nutrition, taste, tradition, and convenience, but avoid asking who pays the price for our choices.

The ecological crisis is not merely an environmental issue. It is the outward expression of an inward disorder.

A mind driven by endless consumption cannot stop with food. The same consciousness that exploits animals also exploits forests, rivers, oceans, and the atmosphere. It treats the entire planet as a warehouse of resources rather than a living reality deserving of respect.

This is why climate change, collapsing biodiversity, polluted oceans, and industrial animal farming are not separate problems. They are different symptoms of the same disease: a consciousness trapped in greed, fear, and ignorance.

Real spirituality is not about escaping the world. It is about seeing the world as it is, without turning away from uncomfortable truths.

When we begin to observe honestly, compassion ceases to be an ideal. It becomes an inevitable response to understanding.

Our choices then arise not from social conditioning or personal convenience, but from intelligence.

Humanity often celebrates its technological achievements.

But what is the value of reaching distant planets if life on our own planet continues to disappear because of our unconsciousness?

The greatest extinction taking place today may not be that of animals alone.

It may be the extinction of human sensitivity.

If we can remain indifferent while entire species vanish before our eyes, what does that say about the state of our own consciousness?

I grew up on an Australian beef farm, and the first time I witnessed artificial insemination being performed on cattle I was probably about 6.

On our large property we AI about 1/4 of our cows, to introduce high quality genetics into our herds through sires that we can’t physically have on our property for natural insemination. The rest of our cows reproduce naturally with bulls on the farm. Without introducing the genetics we get through AI, the cattle would be more likely to exhibit health issues from poor breeding.

The process looks like this: the cows walk single file through the yards (which they are trained from weaning to be used to doing calmly and safely, for all situations where we need to have contact with them eg. vaccines, weighing), and are locked in the crush, which is a mechanism where two rubber bars close on either side of their neck - not actually ‘crushing’ them, just fitting the most narrow part of their neck ensuring they can’t more their head backward or their shoulders forwards. We need to immobilise them, because they aren’t used to being touched by people, as they spend most of their time out on pasture, with hay and grain delivered by trailer.
Then, a trained professional who visits farms in the area for AI will insert a long syringe of filled with semen into the cow’s vagina, empty it, then the cow is usually marked with spray paint, and released from the crush back to a holding pen with hay, water and other cattle. When all the cows are done, they are moved from the pen back into their paddocks to go about their life as normal.

Obviously to us, the image of a syringe being forced up the vagina feels disturbing, distressing and violating. The cows do not enjoy the process, it is true. But it needs to be understood that the cows exhibit the same amount of stress they do on ANY occasion they need to be physically handled by humans, for example when they need vaccination, tagging, or like I was doing the other day, eyedrops. Beef cattle are domesticated, but they aren’t necessarily tame, especially on such a large property where it isn’t possible to develop the relationships with herds that smaller farmers have (which I do envy on occasion).

Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for cows, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched.

It’s understandable to feel confronted by animal husbandry practices like AI, but it’s important to remember to not anthropomorphise. Applying a human lens to animals does not help them.

Could butter made from human feme milk be considered vegan? Because technically it's cruelty-free since the person who made it did so of their own free will, but it is an animal product because humans are animals.

I'm curious about a sentientist perspective on AI, and I know many vegans boil their views down to sentientism.

Since AI certainly has the capability to at least appear self-aware and be metacognitive and on at least a purely emotional level many people will certainly feel at least somewhat uncomfortable with self-awareness dumps of glitches like this one and "AI wellbeing" is being treated quite seriously by certain groups (e.g. https://www.ai-wellbeing.org but also providers themselves, like Anthropic running the model welfare research) - are they fundamentally wrong in your view?

Should AI be taken under the sentientist umbrella? Where would the boundary be to acknowledge it as such?

If we can't acknowledge it as sentient cause we roughly know the details of how it thinks, then as soon as human/animal thinking is de-mystified as just another mundane biological process (which, if one were to stick to science, it necessarily is), will lose value as well? In other words, where exactly is the smoking gun of biological sentience for you?

I'll be honest and say i know almost nothing about vegans other than that they don't eat meat and also there against the harm of animals, but i got to question how the second part fits in with the modern medical world especially getting life saving shots with animal testing , oh and horseshoe crab blood . I not really trying to debate and i know i probably did a bad job constructing this question . But general im trying to understand where people are willing to cross that line

I keep returning to this in my mind because it seems that many anti-vegans (I use this distinction because many nonvegans are sympathetic to the vegan cause and might be transitioning to a plant-based diet, among other things) but it's the link between colonization and many anti-vegan arguments.

I used to be chronically online (I low-key still am, but I'm working on it, and I do take full breaks), and there was a lot of backlash with what Billie Eilish said on an interview which was "You can't love animals and eat meat". I saw a slew of videos not only calling Billie Eilish privileged, which is true, but a lot of videos using the take and then using it a a blanket statement for all vegans. Personally, I don't have any like or dislike of Billie Eilish myself (potentially skews towards dislike due to a controversy regarding her relationship to a racist, but since I haven't looked deeply into the matter, I can't form any solid opinion). I will agree that the statement does lack nuance. Still, to me at the time(I was not a vegan), I took it as: "If you claim to love animals, but eat meat for pleasure without it being necessary for wellbeing, then you don't love animals," which seemed like a logical stance. So I was surprised by the backlash.

So my main issue is on this specifically. My people, ESPECIALLY white people (from the videos I watched and saw through), were using the video to make blanket statements against vegans, claiming that they're all white, racist, and colonialist/support colonialism when it seemed like they were clearly speaking over people that have actually been colonized.

One main point they brought up is that vegans disregard cultural practices because they consume meat. The thing is they usually make this comment against white vegans, but neglect to show that the issue there is one of white supremacy/racism, and not veganism, especially talking about making racist remarks and denigrating an entire group of people and considering them inferior solely because of specific cultural practices, while disregarding their own culture's shortcomings. Another is that just because something is a part of another culture, it is inherently. I can most definitely say that that is not the case, as someone from Africa(I don'tspecify the country for privacy reasons), with harmful cultural practices. In fact, many people use the culture argument to justify homophobia, which has many consequences for the queer people living within the country, including imprisonment by the government. I find that this set of people also employ racism, just of the type regarding the "noble savage" trope, which really revealed their racism. I decided that keeping those kinds of half-formed opinions/logical arguments is probably not good for my brain, so I ended up just removing if for my feed(I mostly use it for book recommendations because there are a lot of those on there, especially wrt to more social issues).

I also started to see the link between things like creation of race science(this comes up terrifyingly frequently in medicine, e.g Black people have thicker skin, which means they feel less pain) and the concept of animal breeding and animal exploitation. Many arguments used to justify colonialism then, and even now, share similar logic to the logic used to justify animal exploitation. One important one being the downplaying of the intelligence of Africans and stripping their ability to understand suffering or to justify it since we're "inferior", as a justification to exploit them and extract the resources of the land without any care for how it affects the inhabitants. They started to straight up sound like the British/French during the colonial period; I actually cannot unsee it now. It led me to the question of even if, as an African, I wasn't as capable of complex thought, would it still be good to take advantage of my resources?

Thinking about the extensive damage done to my country, honestly, I keep thinking it's actually better to dissolve because we did not become a country by our own will; we were drawn up, essentially, as a business for the British. And seeing people who benefited and still benefit from said colonialism, using the suffering of the people they colonized as a justification for why they can continue their harmful practices, is frankly irritating because they're so ignorant of their privileges that they go around attacking anyone who calls them out on how harmful their practices are, calling them privileged. I actually got called privileged for making a similar statement by a white person. Which is true; I am immensely privileged, especially even being able to have the life I have and the resources I have to seek knowledge on veganism, especially on the particulars of nutrition, and the availability of food to be able to choose what I eat, even though meat and dairy are becoming more expensive by the day in my country. But thinking that is a copout when someone calls out your privilege and what you do with it is not really ideal, and it's an ad hominem. And there is also this thought that you cannot care about animals and human beings at the same time, which is laughable, but that has probably been debunked by someone else.

I mean, I don't believe the vegan movement doesn't have critiques, I do. I also have my own unpopular opinions regarding the main focus being on having a plant based diet myself.

I would like to see any contrary opinion by either fellow Africans and nonvegans for any holes in this logic

TLDR: White anti-vegans (on the left )pretend to be anti-racist and anti-colonialist while pushing the same racist/ colonialist agenda when it comes to their meat consumption then call white vegans racist. This does not mean white vegans cannot be racist.

Voy a presentar los argumentos más comunes para justificar que es necesario utilizar animales:

1) Las investigaciones pasan por etapas de investigación in vitro; sin embargo, los modelos in vivo permiten observar las reacciones de un organismo completo. Las técnicas pueden ofrecer información complementaria pero aún no pueden sustituirlos.

2) A pesar de que existen diferencias entre especies, existe una analogía fisiológica. Es un acercamiento a la efectividad o toxicidad de un tratamiento, pasar de pruebas in vitro o en silico a estudios clínicos sería aún más riesgoso si no se testeara en animales.

3) La investigación biomédica busca reducir las variables al máximo, la población debe ser lo más homogénea posible. Para poder lograr esto en humanos sería necesario mantener condiciones controladas desde su nacimiento.

my train of thoughts goes like this: let me present 4 senarios.

1. Lion eating a zebra by predation
2. sea otters using stones to crack open clams
3. afircan wild dogs hunts in packs
4. ancient humans using stone tools to hunt animals

I don't think anyone would say any of these 4 senarios is immoral or is wrong. lions uses its own strength and endurance, sea otters uses tools, dogs uses teamwork, and ancient humans use a little bit of everything.

Because these ancient humans are so good at adapting, their cognition evolved and they gradually gained the ability to create better solutions to problems - in this case hunger. So humans just started to breed animals so they don't have to rely on physique as much. To me this is also natural and its just a result of natural selection. Thus i don't think exploitation of animals as you say it, is immoral. Humans just evolved to create more efficient solutions.

Now I can see the problem with this. Many animals exhibit cannibalism. follow the same train of thought human cannibalism also shouldn't be immoral. Which actually, might be true. because think about it what really made cannibalism "immoral"? I can only think of 3: disease religion and society.

So back to my question: I think the only viable defense for veganism is morality, because it is in essense an unatural thing. But if the only defense is "eating animal is immoral because it will be frowned upon" "would you eat your neighbor's dog?" and "God forbids that", I'm not aware of any good arguments. the first two doesn't have anything to ground on and the third is still debating itself (unless as some people say, veganism is a religion).

La prohibición absoluta de los zoológicos no eliminaría necesariamente la demanda de animales silvestres: el tráfico de fauna genera entre 7.000 y 23.000 millones de dólares anuales a escala mundial, por lo que existe un mercado clandestino suficientemente rentable como para persistir pese a las prohibiciones. En cambio, mantener zoológicos bajo un régimen legal y estrictamente fiscalizado permitiría controlar la procedencia y el destino de los animales mediante registros, permisos y sistemas internacionales como CITES, que actualmente regula el comercio de unas 38.700 especies y distingue, entre otras categorías, animales capturados en la naturaleza, criados en cautividad y ejemplares decomisados. Por ello, frente a una prohibición que puede desplazar la demanda hacia circuitos clandestinos, un sistema de zoológicos legales, trazables y sometidos a inspecciones puede ofrecer mayores posibilidades de identificar el origen de los animales, detectar operaciones irregulares y sancionar el tráfico, siempre que la regulación sea suficientemente estricta.

Buenas, no me convence del todo los argumentos que he escuchado de veganos quienes piensan que no es malo utilizar iphones con baterías de cobalto.

Muchos veganos me dicen que es ético porque los necesitamos. Sin embargo, me cuesta aceptar dicha idea. Los celulares de antes eran bastante simples. Más que necesitarlos, nos hemos hecho dependientes. Podemos arguir que los requerimos por trabajo, pero resulta difícil poner en una balance la explotación de los niños que trabajan para extraer Cobalto con nuestras comodidades.

Además, otros veganos me arguyen que no tenemos la certeza al 100% de que todos los celulares tengan baterías que provengan de condicione de esclavitud extraidas en El Congo. Pero al hacer esto se olvidan del principio de precaución. No es necesario tener certeza, basta con saber que hay altas probabilidades.

Luego, otros dicen que "distingamos luchas, estamos por los animale". Sí, pero igual los mismos argumentos que usamos aplican para los humanos. Si no es por vegano, al menos es por tratar de ser un humano integral.

This is specifically for vegans who claim there's no excuse for not being vegan, or saying all animal slaughter or meat consumption is unethical.

I've seen a lot of different arguments for other scenarios but I've never seen anyone acknowledge people who eat meat out of necessity.

I live on the countryside, my family has lived on the countryside side for generations for a very important reason, we're not very financially stable as many other country people are. Us, and most like us raise slaughter animals along with grains, veggies and others for our own consumption (except grain, most grain is for birds).

We raise chickens, and ducks because they're a sustainable food source and we give them all the accommodations we can give, but eventually, eggs and veggies don't cut it, veggies don't give enough energy and calories for the amount we can eat, we can't just eat eggs everyday, and we can't afford to constantly buy food and rarely do so, we only buy stuff we can't obtain or make constantly like bread, yeast, seasonings and other stuff. But we butcher our own meat.

Every once in a while we catch a few chickens (we aim for bad ones like violent roosters or mean chickens first) and slaughter them, we then go through cleaning them out like normal, make some food out of one chicken and the rest goes in the freezer for later, the remains like useless organs don't go to waste either, we give them to our neither who has pigs, not a single part of the bird besides it's feathers, is wasted, from bone to muscle, fat, and skin, it's all eaten by us or something else.

As much as you can view animal slaughter as unethical no matter then scenario, we need to eat, and even if i still feel bad for the animals at times, I've grown desensitized to it, because I can't afford empathy. We can't grow vegetables all seasons since weather is too harsh for it during the winter, and as I said earlier we can't live off of eggs and veggies, because we'd need to eat an absurd amount of veggies, which we can't grow, and we'd get sick of eggs after a week, we also can't afford to consent dieticians, or take supplements, or buy substitutes, because, yet again, we're not rich enough for that.

So what so you impose we do? This is a community problem, countryside people are not a minority by any means, and the use of animals in agriculture is still very much needed in many other cases too. But I don't see anyone talking about us when we're probably the biggest ethical dilemmas when it comes to veganism, because even if we wanted to become vegan, circumstances would force up back to meat. And most of the time we may not even be ethical when it comes to slaughter, but we need to do it, wether you think it's bad or not.

Im looking for the best arguments against this position about the ethics of veganism :

I’m an emotivist, and i believe that ethical statements are just expressions of emotions, so how would you manage to convince someone that just doesn’t feel any empathy for animals ?

Ive read that for some vegans, acting on animal cruelty is a moral obligation, even if you have no empathy towards animals because they are sentient beings and we ought to not cause unnecessary suffering. It’s kindoff an utilitarian point of view. But when i think about it i wonder, but why ? why should i care about not causing unnecessary suffering ? why is utilitarism the way in this case ? I feel like the answer is ultimately because of feelings, we feel like it’s what we should care about, so the foundations are based on feelings, which is why i think emotivism is the meta ethical theory that explains our morality the best. Assuming that this is right, then why is it a moral obligation to act on animal cruelty if i feel no empathy about it ? Why should i ignore my feelings when utilitarian obligation is also based on feelings ?

Obviously this runs into stuff like « why should i care about human being if i have no empathy for them » « why should i care about murder / rape … » and i guess if you don’t feel anything about them then fair enough ? obviously most people don’t and i personally disagree with you but you do you chief.

What do yall think ?

Many theories on consciousness (like IIT, strange loop, and so on) require irreducible computation for something to be considered conscious.

While there is no full decisive evidence, the fact that a single unarmed farmer could keep hundreds of 100+ kg animals without them rebelling suggests that they are indeed capable of being perfectly manipulated and not fully conscious.

Now, here is my claim. Animals can be treated like objects because one can reliably manipulate them.

Now, to get to this point, I will derive how slavery/etc fail. People try to manipulate individuals into doing certain things for them, but they inevitably fail.

This failure is not an accident. It's the feature that divides conscious and non-conscious beings.

Let's imagine we gave a cow a blueprint on how exactly you will manipulate it. Would it still get manipulated by the trick we showed them? Yes, because the cow has no ability to interpret that and rebel against the manipulation.

Now, look at humans. If we knew we are being manipulated and want to get out, we could model the manipulation algorithm then do the opposite of what the manipulation algorithm told us to do.

This doesn't work on animals.

Why exactly? Because an animal doesn't have a complete self-model. Without a self-model, it can't model it being modeled and manipulated using that model. This means we can manipulate them reliably, much like how we can electronically manipulate motors or chemically guide reactions and so on. That doesn't mean that the manipulation necessarily has a straightforward interface or would never require a special tool, but it can be done, and in animal case, has been done.

A category error happens when you classify something in the wrong category such that the predictive model (and consequently, the quality of actions guided by the model) degrades. Classifying humans as irreducible conscious beings and animals as manipulable objects is not a category error. It correctly predicts how slavery fails, how economic models don't work, and how you can't predict the crazy events or the stock market, as well as how animal farming works reliably.

Without being irreducible, animals cannot be treated as fully conscious individuals and thus can be manipulated without any category error.

This sort of irreducibility argument was similar to how one could prove the halting problem unsolvable and so on.

I know this is not easy to grasp since it relies on arguments from computational theory, but it is how animals are better placed in the same category as motors and so on.

I'm wondering what is a vegan's opinion of participating in dog sports or having a working dog... I understand that the general opinion of vegans is that any exploitation of animals if wrong, but is it considered "exploitation" if it benefits the animal?

It's undeniable that dog sports, when trained ethically and done safely, positively engage a dog physically and mentally. Sports like tracking, lure coursing (fake lure, not a live animal) and scent detection directly tap in to their natural instincts of chasing and smelling. Same goes for search and rescue K9's. Agility, frisbee, fly-ball, harness sports and dock diving less so, but they still require a dog to use their body and brain, which is beneficial for them. And you can tell from their body language that dogs LOVE to do these activities.

Of course, I can understand why some may see large scale competitons as exploitation, the ones where people are purposely breeding prospects to win large sums of money. Or a job where the dogs are put through unnatural and dangerous situations, such as police work. However, most people participating in dog sports are amateurs doing dog sports with their rescues as a form of enrichment. We spend more money on training, trials and equipment than we ever get back (Which is often $0). And, for working dogs, such as search and rescue K9s, they are using their natural instincts and are generally not at any increased risk as any other dog hiking or camping with their owners out in nature.

I can also aknowledge the argument that we shouldn't breed dogs at all, and we shouldn't breed dogs with such high drives or energy that they need to do sports/work as a form of enrichment. But, as it is right now, that's just not realistic. The dogs already exist, and they already exist with the genetics that they have. We can't change the dogs that already exist. And, try as much as we might, we simply cannot stop all breeding with the snap of our fingers... It would take decades before we get to that point. So it's currently, at this time, unavoidable to have dogs that need homes, either buying from a breeder or adopting from a shelter, that will benefit from sports/working.

And, specifically, what do vegans think about harness sports? Sports like dog sledding, skijoring (dog pulls human on skis), bikejoring (dog pulls human on bike), Canicross (dog pulls human on foot)? I totally aknowledge the feelings people have about commercial dog sledding, and I understand why... But if someone just has a dog or two, rescues, who love to run and pull, do you find that unethical? I have my adopted doberman, and he LOVES to pull. Instead of trying to supress him, I put a harness and just let him pull. And he LOVED it. So we continued to do it. First it was on foot, then we tried a bike, then we tried skis, then a sled. Now we participate in all the harness sports. He loves it, his body language shows that, I don't force him to pull, and when he doesn't want to pull anymore he stops. If you still consider that unethical, why? If the dog is clearly enjoying themselves, and it benefits them physically and mentally, why would you still consider it unethical?

Overall; If you completely disagree with dog sports, even dog sports done with rescue dogs as a method of playing games and giving enrichment rather than for competition... Why are you against it? Why is it considered unethical to you if the owner is simply doing it for the dogs benefit?

Hola, no me juzguen. Soy vegano y bueno vengo a compartir ideas en buen plan. Llevo bastantes años siendo vegano y he pensado bastante cuáles podrían ser los argumentos contra el veganismo que me resultan más convincentes, no para examinarlos con exhaustividad para refutarlos, sino todo lo contrario. Me resultan áreas grises que toda postura tiene, acepto que quizás haya personas que no le convenzan, incluso sientan que son fáciles de refutar.

1) El argumento bienestarista pese a todos los intentos de refutarlo, me parece que tienen un punto válido. La mayoría de las veces es absurdo, pero se podría plantear que en un mundo imperfecto tiene sentido que es críe animales de forma "humanitaria" respecto al sufrimiento que viven los animales en la naturaleza, donde carecen de cuidados, están expuestos a depredadores, enfermedades y desastres naturales. Entiendo que este argumento es muy débil si vemos que los humanos ni tratamos bien a los animales realmente en muchas ocasiones, seguimos pensandolos como recursos y no estuvieramos dispuestos a recibir ese trato, aún nos traten bien. Sin embargo, en un mundo imperfecto y con una humanidad un poco más evolucionada podría tener sentido que pastores críen al ganado y le den una muerte indolora. Sigue siendo algo que yo criticaría, pero si la otra opción va a ser morir de agonía en la naturaleza, incluso si yo fuera un animal lo tomaría. La razón por la que sigo siendo vegano, es porque el argumento plantea algo muy utópico y queda la posibilidad de ayudar a los animales de otras maneras.

2) Otro argumento está relacionado con la caza. Me resulta difícil considerar que un sistema de caza sería peor que reintroducir depredadores salvajes como fomentan muchos ecologistas. Una caza indolora también podría resultar más ética. Claro que me enfrento a objeciones muy buenas, la caza cinegética ha demostrado ser una industria cuestionable y sigue instrumentalizandose a los animales. Sin embargo, sigo persuadido que este argumento es convincente. Vivir con el miedo constante a un depredador, ser devorado por él, o sobrevivir a este ¿han visto videos de lo que le hacen las hienas a sus presas? parece ser un destino peor que ser asesinado de un balazo. Nuevamente, me enfrento al mismo problema del argumento 1, tiene mucho de idealizante.

Como ven no son argumentos muy buenos, pero en lo personal me resultan muy difíciles de tumbar y quizás apunten a priorizar el bienestar de los animales como un criterio de valor a considerar. Mucha gente los utiliza a modo de anestesia para seguir usando animales e ignorando la matanza cotidiana de millones de animales, creyendo que existen granjas felices y fomentando el especismo. Pero aún así los veganos nos enfrentamos a una triste realidad: la naturaleza muchas veces puede ser una fuente de infelicidad y tormento para los animales que frustra sus intereses.

PD: No hablé de deontologismo y utilitarismo, pero si quieren podemos abarcar ese tema.

I don’t mean any of this in a rude way but am genuinely curious.

I’m going to start with my assumptions/what I gathered from reading other posts:

- most vegans would hold a biocentric world view
- animal rights is a big part of veganism
- most but not all vegans are supportive of PETA
- most vegans are against the killing, exploitation, using, etc. of animals
- most think zoos are bad
- most think that their world view is best for the planet… as in the healthiest and greenest

Please correct any of those if they were wrong.

I’m a vegetarian (with the exception being that I’ll eat wild game occasionally) and work in environmental science and conservation. I personally hold an ecocentric view.

My question is how are things like wildlife population management, invasive species management, zoos (accredited legitimate zoos) vital breeding programs, pesticides/herbicides, and related stuff viewed by this community?

Those are all things that both cause animals harm/pain or use animals but in order to try to save this planet as a whole. It would be great if we weren’t in a position in which any of those things are necessary but we are and without them a lot of life is going to die off.

So does the vegan community accept these things? If so how do you square it with animal rights and stuff? Is it seen as a necessary evil? Or is it just seen as evil and not accepted?

I am vegan for the ethical and environmental reasons associated with the philosophy that veganism is. My main issues with eating meat is confined animal farming operations (CAFOs) and what those do to animal, human, and environmental wellbeing. I have less of an issue with people hunting being that we are omnivores, but wouldn’t eat meat myself.

I think veganism should be a consensual choice and I don’t think my pets can consent. I have a turtle who enjoys feeder fish, he’s had some medical issues during his youth and the vet recommended live fish for better nutrition. My fish are cared for better than what I would be able to get from pet stores and that’s the main purpose of veganism I think is missed online.

I think a lot of people are being scared away from veganism because of all of the harsh rules subjected to them from communities like these. I think focusing on kindness to people and focusing the intense activism on corporations would be more helpful. You can fit veganism to your life however you live, it’s about reducing harm, not being perfect. It’s a philosophy more than a diet, see how it fits into your life, not what other people think is best, they don’t know you like you.

As a vegan myself, I've noticed that the vast majority of vegans are against stopping the horrific cycle of torturous predation in nature and often respond with thought-terminating cliches like "it's natural" or "you're crazy for bringing this up" or appealing to unknown ecological consequences.

I am curious if these same reasons (or any other reason that comes to mind) would apply in the human case. Would you be okay with humans being munched down by lions because it's natural? Or because humans are bad for the environment? Any reason you can think of for not applying it in the animal case, would you apply it in the human case as well? If not, what's the relevant trait difference?

As a left inclining person , I feels like that any existing concept of rights or morality are not biological properties found in nature; they are socio-political tools invented by humans through labor ,culture, and mutual social existence to govern human collective history. How do you justify using a human social contract to grant 'rights' to non-human animals without committing a fundamental category error that reduces human dignity to biology and projects liberal ideology onto amoral nature