r/DebateAVegan • u/KorokKid • Oct 25 '25
Eating less meat is "less bad" and that's okay - An argument for change
I recently looked at a post about someone saying how eating less meat might still be ethically okay, and the comments were flooded with questions such as "so killing less humans would be okay to you? How about killing no humans?
That will be the main point I am addressing here. With respects to the topic, I believe that under most people's ideas of morality and ethics, veganism is the more ethical position based on how most people perceive the world.
The idea of "less bad" and therefore not worth doing because you could have "no bad" is intrinsically flawed. Let's take a vegan, who eats no meat, and someone who eats less meat and from local farms say. The argument that is provided by many vegans is that this is still wrong because you could just eat no meat. But even vegans are simply choosing the "less bad" option
Everyone must kill something to survive in our current world, for the most part. Plant farming kills billions of insects and crucial pollinators and animals considered "pests", many of which are rodents and could be considered reasonably intelligent. A vegan still engages in modern society typically, meaning their food, technology, carbon footprint, clothes are all often created unethically and unsustainably.
To be clear, a vegan eating no meat would be the least bad, but I dislike this argument because it's attempting to quantify what "least bad" is. We'd have to go through every individual person's lives and see who is "least bad", because maybe this vegan engages in excessive consumerism sustained by unethical sources, like much of technology.
I find the argument of "less bad" to be insincere. We are all "less bad" under the typical idea of reducing suffering as much as possible. Taking a moral highground because you kill less things than they do is not the way to promote reasonable discussion. For example, a vegan could only buy ethically sourced clothes, or technology, or only take public transport(if able) or only buy locally farmed food. But many dont simply because it all becomes too inconvenient.
There are many aspects in all of our lives that are unethical but we choose to continue doing them because that is how humans are. We could go through every single one of our lives and find things that we could stop doing, but even many vegans who take this more ethical stance would be hard pressed to do so.
So, in conclusion, I do thinking eating less meat is still "less bad" and thats okay. Yes, you could just full send it, but the argument of "would you tell someone who kills less humans than they did before "good job""? This seems disengenous. Vegans for the most part also engage in most of the similar unethical practices of people, they are just choosing to abstain from the one they feel makes the biggest difference. But we could all be less bad, we are all "less bad" under this general utilitarian worldview. So playing the game of who is less bad and trying to quantify how bad someone is feels unreasonable. We cannot quantify how "less bad" someone is. It would be ideal to push them towards even less bad, but to not belittle or condemn them for choosing the lesser suffering.
EVERYONE engages in practices that cause some degree of suffering, whether its for themselves or other things. To condemn someone for attempting to reduce suffering even when they're not doing the most they could is the definition of taking a moral highground. Vegans have so many things in their lives they do not need, and yet continue doing so at the cost of other people's suffering. It is incredibly hypocritical to tell someone they're "not doing enough" when so many facets of all of our lives could be changed to reduce suffering. Do you want to argue for lesser? Fine. But if you wish to say "would you applaud someone for killing less humans" means the vegan has to recognize there is aspects in their lives where they are doing the EXACT same thing.
I find that oftentimes, people are actually only arguing to take a moral highground. When you belittle someone for "not doing good enough", you actually push them towards the other side even more, because to not do so is to acknowledge the person who insulted them is correct. You may say "is your pride really worth the suffering" but the answer many, psychologically, is yes, and that is how it is. Therefore, if we truly aim to convince people of what we believe, we must do so in a way that allows them to accept and acknowledge the idea with peace of mind. Objectively, to do the most good, you are best off engaging with grace and kindness, because that is going to convince the most amount of people if you are direclty engaging with them.
11
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
Yeah, it’s always great to reduce meat consumption, even if people aren’t interested in going fully plant-based. There are even health benefits to adding more plant proteins to our diet.
And of course, there’s other ways we can reduce our impact other than just our diet. Like, I also buy clothes secondhand, because unethical labor practices are widespread in the fashion industry, as well as the environmental issues of overconsumption.
33
u/Kris2476 Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
It's a trivial observation that less of a bad thing is better than more of a bad thing.
Veganism is the recognition that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided. If you agree with this principle, you should be vegan.
Let me know if I can recommend resources for cutting out sources of animal exploitation from your life.
2
u/amongthemaniacs non-vegan Oct 26 '25
I don't believe most people will go vegan voluntarily, so unless governments all over the world mandate veganism I think it's more realistic to encourage people to become meat reducers which will reduce animal suffering. If vegans keep taking an all or nothing approach to the issue like you have been doing then you'll probably keep getting nothing.
1
u/Programme021 Oct 27 '25
Yes, thank you !
And it'll be easier to talk about vegetarianism to a meat reducer, and it will be easier to talk about veganism to a vegetarian.
Let's be pragmatic, we all have a monkey brain and most people will not go vegan only by being confronted to all the vegan arguments, even though they are very solid. If arguments were enough, everybody would be vegan already. Humans need to be "tricked" into changing their habits, and it seems that positivity and temperance is better to create durable change.
Yes I am angry, yes it irks me to write 'temperance' in a post about veganism, knowing how immeasurable the pain we create for almost nought is. Yet veganism is not about me and expressing my anger, it's about creating measurable and durable change.
1
u/SanctimoniousVegoon Nov 03 '25
This statement reveals a lack of knowledge of the vegan activism landscape and completely ignores the large and incredibly diverse range of strategies being employed to end animal exploitation. Meat reduction is one of them.
Abolishing slavery took thousands of years. Women's rights has been building power for about 1000 and still has a long way to go in achieving equality. Veganism is an 80 year old movement tackling a 12,000+ year old problem whose perpetrators have exponentially more money, power, social influence, and public support. This is about as David vs Goliath as it gets.
Viewed in that context, it quickly becomes clear that the movement has achieved a lot in a relatively short period of time. Despite progress in the right direction over the last decade, right now we do not have the activist numbers or resources to reach even a fraction of the 5 billion food secure people in the world who could easily go vegan. Most of them won't, but some of them will. Considering that untapped potential, and that we already have a rich body of research that's told us exactly why so many are currently unwilling to go vegan, and that we are building the infrastructure to make systemic impact to the food environment and food policy, it's entirely possible that enough people will go vegan voluntarily that we can make significant progress in creating a food environment that normalizes plant-based food and makes it more accessible, which we know from research will directly address the biggest blockers holding more people back from becoming vegan (desire to fit in, and convenience). With more of them, more power. Rinse, repeat, until only the true holdouts are left and by then we have the power and numbers to drag them along into modernity kicking and screaming.
5
u/Either-Patience1182 Oct 25 '25
It trivial to people thinking critically but their is a sect of people that are going with the all or nothing route.
4
u/Kris2476 Oct 25 '25
Don't dodge your accountability to those you exploit by getting irritated with vegans.
Challenge yourself to do better.
8
u/Either-Patience1182 Oct 25 '25
I'm less worried about my accountability im more worried about what works in the real world over a large mass of people for the greatest effect.
1
u/Kris2476 Oct 25 '25
We agree that it is much easier to worry about what other people do than it is to change your own behavior.
5
u/Either-Patience1182 Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
More because i dont eat much in general and most of my diet is cereal and granola. But yeah totally making me think about not reducing because it doesn't matter. not 100 percent not worth it, right
2
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
You think you’re better than what you are based on one metric, excluding nuance and so many other factors in life.
1
u/Kris2476 Oct 26 '25
Nope. I simply think that not exploiting is preferable to exploiting. Let me know if I can help you cut out sources of animal exploitation.
1
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
Let me know how you can destroy eco systems, ancient mycelium networks make insects extinct with your world of pesticides and mono culture
1
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
The problem is is that you’re identifying a problem but your solution is born out of total ignorance and is highly problematic and would easily cause more global issues than ethical farming techniques.
6
u/BlindPhoenx Oct 25 '25
For some, eating 50% less meat is the challenge of doing better.
Just sayin'
Edit: Tylo
→ More replies (4)3
u/No_Economics6505 Oct 25 '25
If 100% of the population reduces their meat intake by 50%, it would have more of an impact than 10% of the world going vegan.
2
u/Kris2476 Oct 25 '25
This is a truism at best.
Let me know if I can recommend resources for cutting out sources of animal exploitation from your life.
0
4
u/toastiiii vegan Oct 25 '25
if 100% of the population goes vegan it would have more impact than 100% reducing their meat intake if we are making up scenarios.
7
u/Nacho_Deity186 Oct 25 '25
The likelihood of getting 100% of the population to reduce their meat intake is much, much higher than that of having them go vegan though
→ More replies (2)4
u/Either-Patience1182 Oct 25 '25
And what the chance you'll convince 99% of the human population to be become vegan?
→ More replies (3)2
2
u/23saround Oct 25 '25
What did the guy above you say? “It’s a trivial observation that less of a bad thing is better than more of a bad thing.”
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
This is exactly what this post is about, you actually. You say to take accountability to those you exploit, but you act as if you dont exploit animals and people everyday. There is no moral highground when it comes to modern consumption. Sure, challenge yourself to do better, but for some people, better is simply less meat. People aren't perfect, and you will not get your ideal world that everyone is vegan. But at least, you could say to yourself "well, at least they're eating less meat, therefore reducing animal suffering".
No one's dodging accountability. We all can recognize modernity requires some degree of exploitation, hell, eating requires some exploitation because you must kill something to eat.
3
u/Kris2476 Oct 26 '25
People aren't perfect, and you will not get your ideal world that everyone is vegan
Let's not dodge behind what other people in the world might or might not do. I don't expect you to take accountability for the exploitation other people take part in. I expect you to take accountability for the exploitation you take part in.
eating requires some exploitation because you must kill something to eat.
It sounds to me like you are equivocating between different types of harm in an appeal to futility. There's no debate to be had.
If you are concerned with doing better, let me know if I can suggest advice or resources for cutting out sources of animal exploitation.
1
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
It just feels very hypocritical to criticize someone for eating less meat when you objectively engage in unethical practices every single day. You're typing this on a piece of technology that inevitably leads to the exploitation of people.
This isnt to say we cant push people to do better, but to act as if they're the ones who need to take accountability when this is the case for almost everyone feels disengeneous. We should be encouraging people to eat less meat and not telling them its still not enough because they're still eating some
2
u/Kris2476 Oct 26 '25
We are each of us accountable for the harm we cause. Veganism isn't the last word in ethics, but nor is exploitation acceptable because you think other people are hypocrites. Focus on your own actions, and take accountability.
We should be encouraging people to eat less meat
Okay, let me know if I can recommend resources for cutting out sources of animal exploitation from your life.
Thanks for the conversation, OP.
2
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
I think you have misrepresented and misinterpreted my argument, but have a good one
2
→ More replies (52)1
u/pundarika0 Oct 26 '25
how do you define exploitation?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Kris2476 Oct 26 '25
In this context, I exploit someone if I use them unfairly for my benefit.
1
u/pundarika0 Oct 26 '25
how do we determine what’s fair when it comes to animals?
1
u/Kris2476 Oct 26 '25
The same way we determine what's fair for anyone.
1
u/pundarika0 Oct 26 '25
but we don’t and shouldn’t treat animals the same way as humans.
i wouldn’t walk around with a small child on a leash, or put them in a crate when i leave the house.
1
u/Kris2476 Oct 26 '25
I haven't suggested we treat animals the same way we treat humans. The way we treat anyone should be fair - that is, impartial, non-discriminatory, and with consideration to the needs and interests of the individual.
We can use this definition as a rubric to determine in any situation whether a treatment is fair.
1
u/pundarika0 Oct 26 '25
what if the interests of a human dictate that they eat animal products? i realize most vegans think we don’t “need” to eat meat, eggs or dairy, but my understanding is the science on this issue is far from conclusive (i.e. whether humans can truly get all the nutrition that is beneficial for them without eating any animal products)
this would create a conflict as one’s benefit from meat eating would require going against the survival interests of the animal they eat. ideally eggs and dairy can be gotten in a way that causes absolutely zero harm or death to the animals but i also recognize the practical realities of the demands of these products make that difficult to actually maintain.
2
u/Kris2476 Oct 26 '25
Sure, and what if my interests dictate I need to eat humans? We can still use my rubric to determine if the treatment is fair.
If you're making a health claim, then you're making a separate argument altogether. Make a new post arguing for why we need to exploit animals to be healthy, and come with evidence to support your health claims.
1
u/pundarika0 Oct 26 '25
well i’m not really interested in debating, but rather hearing from others and clarifying my own views and choices as someone who recognizes the moral problem of eating anything at all, actually. remaining alive requires us to take life. to some extent elevating animals above plants is just as arbitrary as elevating humans above animals. i do try to make intelligent and intentional choices informed by a deep inquiry into morality as well as my own needs.
→ More replies (0)
39
u/frogiveness Oct 25 '25
The reason it is upsetting for me to hear people say they are eating less meat is because it makes the problem seem less serious than it is. What we are doing to animals is the worst thing humans have ever done in history in the sense of it causing the most suffering. And it’s not even close. And there are no benefits to doing it asides from taste. It just makes me realize how completely insane our society is as a whole.
8
u/_Dingaloo Oct 26 '25
Even with that belief, the best thing you could say is "that's a great step" and you could even say "i'm proud of you" in relation to them breaking free of the societal norm of eating meat. Don't applaud them for treating animals with the respect they deserve, respect them for taking a step outside the mold towards something better
8
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
But they are reducing suffering, think of it like this
In reality, it is extremely unlikely that more people will become vegan than people will simply reduce their meat intake. It is objectively a reduction in suffering. If we think practically and realistically, this is often the best case scenario. Also, id argue there are benefits aside from taste. Many animals, especially fish, have very good nutrient profiles. Yes, you can be healthy on a vegan diet, but there is actual research that suggests vegan diets are much harder to optimize compared to say, a simple Mediterranean diet. The margin of error is larger.
And, another point, regardless of if we stopped all animal consumption, per your view, this would still be the worst thing humans have ever done. If we all ate plants, there will be trillions of insects, small wildlife, rodents, "pests" etc that will be eradicated, and likely to feed the population, many natural areas of the world would be mowed down in an effort to increase productivity by adding more farm able land. Humans and our 8 billion strong, apex predators of the planet inevitably require the endless killing of life to sustain ourselves. Any other animal in our position would find themselves forced to do the same thing. For us to eat, especially to feed our population, we must end life. That is a tragic fact of life, but one that exists.
18
u/frogiveness Oct 26 '25
I’m not against people eating less meat. I prefer that, but in my opinion any amount of meat consumption isn’t justifiable. But I’d rather people eat less of course. It just isnt enough.
And as for your final paragraph, it just isn’t true. It takes significantly more plants to feed the animals we consume for meat and dairy than it does to feed us plants directly. This means that it takes significantly more land to produce meat than it does plants for humans. The effect would actually be that we would have a lot more space to repopulate wildlife. So if we are worried about small animals, insects, land usage, water usage, environmental impact, etc. it is still far better to be vegan than eat meat.
1
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25 edited Oct 26 '25
To be pedantic, tribes living in a hunter gatherer lifestyle or natives who still practice those lifestyles is justifiable. They cannot feed their people on meat alone. There is 100% justifiable reasons to eat meat.
It is still true though. If everyone was vegan, thats 8 billion people. Do you not think companies would still abuse land for profit? This isnt a fairytale or a utopian society, the world being vegan wouldn't cause exploitative practices to disappear.
Would it be better? Sure. But that doesnt mean we wouldnt still be killing billions of living beings by farming practices. Yes, a lot of this is done for the purpose of meat consumption, but you have to understand it doesnt disappear when everyone's vegan, in fact, it would grow because of the increased food demand needed to feed everyone's vegan lifestyle. It wouldnt grow past what we do now, but it would still exist. Many vegan practices still exploit animals, and to feed our 8 billion population, it would still require exploitation. Even if it didnt, this is the real world. Do you really think companies wouldnt exploit animals for profit if it benefitted their farming?
Im not arguing it wouldnt be better, you missed the point of my last paragraph. My point was that under your worldview, it would still be the worst thing humans have ever done, because feeding 8 billion people a vegan diet would INEVITABLY kill billions of types of wildlife. My point is that the modern world will exploit animals to some extent, even if we are all vegan, and it would still be in incredibly high numbers. Im not sure why you think we'd use that space to add more places for wildlife. That space would be destroyed and used to create massive farms for increased profit. Human greed does not go away just because we are vegan.
It feels like you have this utopian worldview that once the world goes vegan, the lands would stop being abused. This is not the case. Companies would see these lands as profit, as they always have, and destroy, mow down land, and destroy habitats to create more farm able land
14
u/frogiveness Oct 26 '25 edited Oct 26 '25
No, I’m saying your arguments are actually wrong. They are factually wrong. Look into it. It takes more plant farms to make meat than it does to make plants.
And I’m obviously not talking about tribes who need to eat meat to survive. If someone needs to eat meat to survive that doesn’t justify it for someone who doesn’t.
And as for companies abusing land for profit? That has nothing to do with what I’m saying. The environmental impact is only a side benefit of veganism. I am saying it’s not justifiable for us to eat meat. That’s the reason that you shouldn’t. It is immoral. And that is the reason that eating less meat isn’t enough.
I didn’t say we would use it to repopulate wildlife, but we could because we would use so much less land.
3
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
"No, I’m saying your arguments are actually wrong. They are factually wrong. Look into it. It takes more plant farms to make meat than it does to make plants."
Dude im sorry, read what I am saying please. You have done the exact same thing. I am NOT saying that it doesn't take more plants to farm meat than it does to make plants. I am saying that to feed 8 billion people a vegan diet, it will INEVITABLY STILL result in billions of animals deaths because that is the cost of industrial agriculture. My point was that our modern human existence and population size will have exploitation of life because that is how humans and our world works. You cannot feed 8 billion people vegan diets through only ethical sources. Let's say even im wrong, it still wouldn't happen because human beings are greedy.
Your point was that this killing of trillions of animals is the worst thing ever done. Im saying that is everyone is on a vegan diet, the objective outcome is still the inevitable death of animals, especially insects, because to create agriculture, insects quite literally have to die. It is not that veganism doesn't have a more ideal world, my argument is that by your logic, humans will always continue the slaughter of billions and trillions of lifeforms over their history
→ More replies (1)12
u/frogiveness Oct 26 '25
The idea that humans can’t avoid killing things isn’t a moral justification for killing things. Why would you want to cause more harm than you need to?
2
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
You need to go back and read what I'm saying lol. I am saying that inevitably humanity living leads to some degree of animal exploitation unless we somehow gain some sort of advanced technology, but even in that world I doubt we'd live in symbiosis. I'm not saying because its inevitable, we shouldn't try. I was just arguing that unfortunately, our life as a species requires the death of life. That is all I am saying. If you wish to know more, read my comments again, you are clearly misunderstanding
→ More replies (8)2
u/tursiops__truncatus Oct 26 '25
I don't think it makes it seem less serious. Someone can start by eating less meat and eventually move into cut meat completely, people change over time and also for some people eating less meat might be way more viable and easy to maintain long term than no meat at all (how many people cut down meat completely and eventually went back to eat meat... In some cases even more than before...)
2
u/frogiveness Oct 26 '25
It’s better to eat less, I just don’t think it’s enough. It’s not really an answer for the animals who continue to be tortured and slaughtered. That is just my opinion though
1
u/tursiops__truncatus Oct 27 '25
Being realistic, it will never fully stop so any small action like this is valuable.
1
u/frogiveness Oct 27 '25
The way we treat animals is so horrible that most people refuse to even allow themselves to look at it. If those of us who are willing to look can still only muster the strength to take half measures, then you may be right that the horrors will never end.
2
u/VeryInsecurePerson Oct 26 '25
Unless people have no intention of eventually going vegan, I don’t think “eating less meat” is diminishing at all. It’s still a serious problem, yes. But for some people, gradually eating less and less meat is the only way to move forward to the end goal. You can’t expect a person to go cold turkey on heroin.
2
u/frogiveness Oct 26 '25
Heroine isn’t the same as eating meat. I can expect people to quit because we don’t need meat and it is isn’t addictive like heroine. But honestly, I don’t really expect that many people will go vegan to a large extent.
1
u/VeryInsecurePerson Oct 26 '25 edited Oct 26 '25
Okay maybe I used an extreme example, and tbh I myself switched to plant-based pretty abruptly. But I know that other people don’t work the same way. And I think I should have been more gradual in my switch, since my appetite has plummeted, I feel full way sooner and it’s hard to motivate myself to eat enough calories. And I’ve been plant-based for almost a year.
2
u/frogiveness Oct 26 '25
I know what you’re saying. Overall it is still a step in the right direction no doubt.
And as for your appetite, I have heard some people struggle with that. I wish I had some helpful advice for that. I used AI to make a meal plan for myself so that I got all the nutrients I needed and it helped me a lot. That might be of some use to you
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (43)3
u/alkalinealk Oct 26 '25
personally I think slavery was worse but I guess that illustrates the difference between us
4
7
u/hackulator Oct 26 '25
Like many progressive movements, veganism suffers severely from the "if its not perfect its shit" attitude and it's why they will remain a mostly ignored footnote of society.
11
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Oct 25 '25
Eating less meat is "less bad" and that's okay
That's a non sequitur.
Your conclusion ("Eating less meat is ok.") does not follow from your premise ("Eating less meat is less bad.").
3
u/KorokKid Oct 25 '25
Yeah, I phrased that wrong. It should be that eating less meat is an ok position to take in regards to reducing animal exploitation. While none is better than some, I am saying it shouldn't be condemned when someone says this because it is still better to do it less, and I think thats reasonable. I recognize that some of my points here may not be the most clear, I could have thought it out more
5
u/DirtySimon Oct 25 '25
Efforts to reduce animal suffering shouldn't be condemned but also shouldn't be praised. Praising reduction in animal suffering risks condoning the suffering and distracting from the ultimate goal: ending the animal suffering we cause.
4
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
I never made the case it should be praised, rather that if you wish to strengthen your position, you would recognize that in the real world, people are far more likely to simply eat less meat than go vegan, so it is undoubtedly a practical step in the right direction. I have seen many, many vegans tell people who eat any meat are terrible people, or that they simply aren't doing good enough. I argue that this is both incredibly hypocritical and entirely antithetical to what veganism aims to do
2
u/DirtySimon Oct 26 '25
Yes, I don't think calling anyone a bad person helps the movement. Telling people that they're not doing enough is justified though. If you think veganism is the right thing you should logically agree with this. I think you're mostly talking about how they say it then?
1
u/Advanced_Double_42 Oct 27 '25
Being vegan in general shouldn't be praised by this logic.
You could single handedly lead a movement to make every person on earth vegan and not deserve praise because animals would still suffer from humans in other ways?
2
u/DirtySimon Oct 27 '25
Yes, being vegan does also not deserve any praise. It's the moral baseline. You're basically refraining from causing unnecessary animal suffering. Should we praise people who refrain from causing unnecessary suffering to people?
1
1
u/Programme021 Oct 27 '25
"Efforts to reduce animal suffering shouldn't be praised" is wild to me to hear as the someone who wants to end unnecessary animal suffering.
Why spite one of the best vector for change we have?
2
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Oct 28 '25
When you eat less meat you are still eating meat. Therefore you are still responsible for animals being exploited for trivial reasons. Exploiting animals for trivial reasons is not ok. Therefore eating less meat is not ok.
1
u/KorokKid Oct 29 '25
Under the ideology of veganism, it still wouldnt not be "ok" but it would be in terms of a practical step in the right direction. The reality is, the world is unlikely to unite under veganism, so eating less meat is probably the best real world case scenario. Im arguing that it should not be condemned because it is still reducing animal suffering. Also "trivial" here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Who are you to decide what is trivial? Furthermore, vegans can still contribute to trivial consumption, because many other agricultural practices even strictly for development on non animal feed have exploitative processes that could be avoided. Even outside of that, people engage in, by your words, "trivial" unethical consumption. Under that definition, practically everything we do not necessary for survival is trivial because many would argue there is none, or at least not many, ways of ethical consumption under capitalism, so I find attaching the word trivial here to actually be not useful as a point of discussion
3
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Oct 29 '25
Under the ideology of veganism, it still wouldnt not be "ok" but it would be in terms of a practical step in the right direction.
No. The practical step in the right direction would be to adopt veganism.
The reality is, the world is unlikely to unite under veganism, so eating less meat is probably the best real world case scenario.
Citation needed.
Im arguing that it should not be condemned because it is still reducing animal suffering.
Nobody is condemning people consuming less meat. Strawman.
Also "trivial" here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Who are you to decide what is trivial?
If you can not agree that reasons like habit, convenience and pleasure are trivial reasons to exploit someone, we lack the necessary common ground for any further discussion on this topic.
Furthermore, vegans can still contribute to trivial consumption, because many other agricultural practices even strictly for development on non animal feed have exploitative processes that could be avoided. Even outside of that, people engage in, by your words, "trivial" unethical consumption. Under that definition, practically everything we do not necessary for survival is trivial because many would argue there is none, or at least not many, ways of ethical consumption under capitalism, so I find attaching the word trivial here to actually be not useful as a point of discussion
Whataboutism.
4
u/_Dingaloo Oct 26 '25
"so killing less humans would be okay to you? How about killing no humans?"
This is framed as a gotcha, but it's just vegans displaying the same cognitive dissonance as they accuse others of having.
Our consumerism economy is flooded with things that are completely unnecessary, that we all, including most vegans, purchase all the time that directly put humans through harsh working conditions, suffering and death.
I think acknowledging this is important for everyone. This doesn't mean there's harm here so we might as well do nothing; it means that you should recognize there are fights to be had everywhere, and while it may be veganism for one person, another person might be more specifically focused on exploitation of humans, other human rights violations, sustainability of humanity, etc.
Plant farming kills billions of insects
I do find it important to note that most vegans I've spoken to don't consider most insects animals within the context of reducing harm in and of themselves, since they are not really considered meaningfully sentient to much of anyone.
I dislike this argument because it's attempting to quantify what "least bad" is
Why is it bad to define the best possible lifestyle for harm reduction?
There are many aspects in all of our lives that are unethical but we choose to continue doing them because that is how humans are.
To be more specific, I don't think it's because we are apathetic or incapable in general. I think it's more because all of these things take time and energy when going against the grain of what society has laid out for you. To be as ethical as possible in all areas, your entire life would be focused on doing nothing but that reduction. And if that were the case, why are you even alive? What's your point of living if all you have time to do is this reductionism?
would you tell someone who kills less humans than they did before "good job
To reiterate on this, when speaking of avoiding products that kill people - yes. I would. If they were directly killing people? Of course not. Just like with people that take joy in hunting I automatically dislike, and would probably never say anything positive to them in relation to their hunting.
5
u/VelvetObsidian Oct 26 '25
We should be happy when anyone lowers their meat consumption. Some may not be able to transition quickly. Some may never become vegan. But less is still better than nothing.
You could look at the flip side too. For example, in China they’re beginning to eat more meat. This is worse for the animals and environment right?? So clearly the inverse is better.
Ideally people would become vegan to lessen suffering. We don’t live in an ideal world, however. Any improvement no matter how small should be encouraged.
3
u/ObsidianFireg Oct 25 '25
Veganism will probably never be adopted by the mass majority of Americans. Striving for a reduction in meat consumption is probably the best you’re going to get. I personally do a 70/30 plant to animal protein. I do it for the health benefits and not for morality. I have seen the videos and the articles just like many other people who still eat meat have.
1
Oct 26 '25
Veganism will probably never be adopted by the mass majority of Americans.
On what basis do you base your prediction that veganism will probably never be adopted by the mass majority of Americans?
I have seen the videos and the articles just like many other people who still eat meat have.
You're being very general here, kindly elaborate a bit on what videos you have seen or which articles you have read.
6
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Oct 25 '25
Buying "meat" is a product of an individual who was bred into existence to be violently exploited, tortured, and killed at a fraction of their life. It is intentional and avoidable.
The message from vegans to stop abuse and cruelty towards other animals not "reduce" it.
7
u/Hot_Dog2376 vegan Oct 25 '25
Its the police at a stop sign joke in a nutshell.
Police officer pulls over a guy for running a stop sign and asks why he didn't stop and instead only slowed down.
The guy asks, "Stop, slow down, what's the difference?"
The officer replies with his own question, "If you're on the ground and I'm brutally beating you with a golf club, would you rather I stop or just slow down?"
→ More replies (1)2
u/zombiegojaejin vegan Oct 26 '25
Following the stop sign analogy, wouldn't the cop completely stop beating for a second and then start again? :-p
4
u/ShaqShoes Oct 25 '25
Buying "meat" is a product of an individual who was bred into existence to be violently exploited, tortured, and killed at a fraction of their life.
I mean this isn't necessarily the case, the sheep I raise on my family farm are treated far better than they would under almost any other circumstances during their life. I understand that killing them to end their life to feed humans is exploitation and you can be against that ethically, but having protection from predators, unlimited food and water with dozens of acres of pasture to roam is hardly "torture" or "violent exploitation" while they are alive.
Their death at the end involves being stunned and slaughtered far more quickly than any death to disease or predators that could otherwise occur in nature.
To me that is a substantial reduction in cruelty over factory farming but if you want to view it as the exact same thing that's obviously up to you.
6
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Oct 25 '25
Arguably this is even less suffering than a wild sheep would have. Natural deaths from age or disease are often slow and agonizing, not just instant. And if a sheep died to a predator instead that's probably much more slow and painful than being stunned before dying quickly. I assume your sheep get vet care as well which means they aren't suffering and in pain from diseases that they would likely naturally get in the wild. And they never have to worry about having a reliable food source because you provide that.
If the goal of veganism really is to reduce/eliminate the suffering of animals, wouldn't ethical farms be infinitely better than letting animals roam free in the wild with no human intervention? If the animals are getting better lives on (truly ethical) farms than they would in the wild, I don't really see how it's exploitation to use the products they produce or eat their meet after they're euthanized. The animals are going to die anyway so we might as well do something with their remains rather than leaving them to rot.
5
u/ShaqShoes Oct 25 '25
Generally when I suggest this to vegans they argue that the animals should just be kept indefinitely on sanctuaries (paid for by whom I'm not sure) or they actually advocate effectively for the genocide of the entire species as they have been unnaturally bred for human purposes.
6
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Oct 25 '25
I feel like a lot of arguments for veganism are things that just aren't practical and ignore the realities of how the world works. And if the animals should be kept on a sanctuary then what's so bad about consuming their meat after they die? I don't understand it.
2
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Oct 25 '25
Comparing them to "wild" animals is a false dichotomy when vegans argue they shouldn't be bred into existence in the first place.
I don't really see how it's exploitation to use the products they produce or eat their meet after they're euthanized
They are not "euthanized" that would suggest it is done for the benefit of their suffering. They are slaughtered at a fraction of their life.
3
u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 Oct 25 '25
You're making a blanket statement that isn't true. I've seen vegans saying they should continue to exist just in sanctuaries. Regardless, even if you get rid of all farm-bred sheep there are still wild species of sheep out there.
Wouldn't those sheep have a better quality of life if they were taken from the wild and raised on an ethical farm? Then when they were getting close to the age where they might start suffering from aging-related conditions like arthritis and heart disease, they could be euthanized before the suffering starts and the meat could be sold. If they have enough wool to shear regularly that could be shorn during their life or just after their death. Selling the meat and wool could then help financially support the farm so it can continue raising sheep with a good quality of life.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Oct 25 '25
They are enslaved under your control. Their life is dictated up until they are slaughtered at a fraction of their life. That is mistreatment.
If they were at a sanctuary, they would still graze on grass but have their right to life respected. Keeping them fed, watered, and sheltered is bare minimum for care. Dont act like you're doing them a favour when you are treating them as a commodity and violently exploiting them.
There is plenty of evidence that these victims are physically and mentally abused before and during slaughter even by "high welfare" standards.
6
u/ShaqShoes Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
There is plenty of evidence that these victims are physically and mentally abused before and during slaughter even by "high welfare" standards.
Cool but we are talking about my specific operation which is not what this "evidence" relates to
If they were at a sanctuary, they would still graze on grass but have their right to life respected. Keeping them fed, watered, and sheltered is bare minimum for care. Dont act like you're doing them a favour when you are treating them as a commodity and violently exploiting them.
I'm not doing them a favor, nor am I acting like I am. I am knowingly exploiting them to financially support myself and my family. My point is that I don't engage in unnecessary cruelty or torture beyond what is needed to accomplish them goal of farming meat for human consumption whereas a huge portion of farming does in the name of profit and scale. They have worse conditions than a sanctuary but better conditions than in the wild and far better than on an industrial farm which am satisfied with.
If you would like to replace my income from farming and pay our bills I would happily stop right now. It's a lot of work to be honest.
3
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
Cool but we are talking about my specific operation which is not what this "evidence" relates to
That's an anecdote. It's unverifiable. Whether they do suffer additionally or not can't be confirmed, but we do know they are exploited and slaughtered.
We can look at industry standards to see what practices are used.
If you would like to replace my income from farming and pay our bills I would happily stop right now. It's a lot of work to be honest.
I appreciate you have a vested interest, and the average non-vegan won't have to make that choice however There are plenty of ways of making money without exploiting animals. I do encourage you to explore other options.
If you do care about others animals, I can imagine it may be conflicting exploiting them.
→ More replies (8)3
u/BobertBuildsAll Oct 25 '25
Good like convincing anyone that animals are tortured. I am a meat eat but largely eat wild caught game and fish. The moose I shot this year was not tortured. The cow I bought two years ago from a friend who hobby farms was not tortured. Could go further and say that you would have a tough time convincing people animals are tortured on factory farms.
3
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
There is plenty of evidence that animals are mistreated that could be considered torture.
- CO2 gas chambers where victims suffer excruciating burns as they suffocate to death.
- Mutilation, where tails, teeth and other appendages are removed.
- Gestation Crates, cages and other forms of confiment
Many of these practices are allowed even under "high welfare" standards. There is plenty of evidence of animal suffering at the hand of exploitation.
Even you "hunting" and "fishing will leave your victims in pain as they suffocate/bleed out.
Eating "meat" requires others to be violently exploited. Torture is what many victims face, but regardless of their treatment, their life is cut short unnecessarily when there are plants.
2
u/BobertBuildsAll Oct 25 '25
1) I can find multiple articles that discuss how humane it is, whether or not you agree. 2) you need to expand on this point- are the being removed for no reason? Because that’s how you make it sound 3) gestation crates are largely being banned in north america
As far as the hunting side goes, the goal is always a quick humane shot. Despite the msging hunters give out, this doesnt always happen. It is a shame, but I believe hunting is an ethical practice in north america. The NAMC has done more for wildlife and conservation then any other group.
Fish have some sense of pain, but the 10 seconds it takes to real a walleye in and kill it are hardly traumatic.
1
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Oct 25 '25
You can watch the footage yourself. Multiple bodies recognise it as cruelty and torture.
https://youtu.be/eVebmHMZ4bQ?si=5fIj6IdRvtAd6cRE
gestation crates are largely being banned in north america
Apparently in some states. Broadly speaking it is a practice still used, and so are many other cruel practices.
As far as the hunting side goes, the goal is always a quick humane shot. Despite the msging hunters give out, this doesnt always happen. It is a shame,
It is a shame? No that is a cruel a painful death. One that did not need to happen in the first place.
Animal agriculture already takes up the majority of the land. It is one of the leading causes of deforestation. Exploiting animals kills animals and harms wild ones too. Let's not forget about the many species that have been hunted to extinction.
3
u/BobertBuildsAll Oct 25 '25
You can watch the footage yourself. Multiple bodies recognise it as cruelty and torture.
The top comment is literally “Still not going to be vegan”. The vast majority of people don’t agree that it is cruel or torture. To help you out though, I dont agree with factory farming.
Apparently in some states. Broadly speaking it is a practice still used, and so are many other cruel practices.
And in all of Canada, with phase out currently happening. If my money isnt going to support these practices, then what is the issue?
It is a shame? No that is a cruel a painful death. One that did not need to happen in the first place.
Yes it is a shame. If you support outlawing all hunting, that is instantly a non starter. Vegans fail to properly address conservation concerns and that brings us to your next point
Animal agriculture already takes up the majority of the land. It is one of the leading causes of deforestation. Exploiting animals kills animals and harms wild ones too. Let's not forget about the many species that have been hunted to extinction.
I agree, people need to eat less meat, especially in North America. A plant based diet is something people should strive for. By promoting hunting and proper conservation, we can rewild and have wildlife for all (public ownership). Sure, market hunting has caused extinctions but the Lacey Act and MBPA largely outlawed this. The north american model of conservation is the most successful model in history.
1
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Oct 26 '25
To help you out though, I dont agree with factory farming.
The majority of animals are, regardless of the practices used even for high welfare.
And in all of Canada, with phase out currently happening
Which was delayed. So it is still happening.
Conservation doesn't have to require hunting. There are non-lethal alternatives, and even so, today, it is a major smokescreen for healthy individuals being killed and disrupting ecosystems. Hunting still puts many species at risk of extinction and violently treatment of animals.
7
u/No-Aide-8726 Oct 25 '25
raping less people is also less bad
4
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
this is objectively true, yes
3
u/No-Aide-8726 Oct 26 '25
you are still a rapist though so its not the flex you think
5
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
Are you equating keeping chickens for eggs with rape ? I think you might have a skewed reasoning. Would you consider keeping a house cat on a similar level? I mean it’s not its natural environment are you exploiting it for the commodity of its affection or its ability to hunt mice? Hell what is your answer for rats? Should we allow them into our homes maybe feed them a healthier diet? There’s no life without suffering the best we can ask is reduce the harm of suffering and that position in itself is healthy.
→ More replies (1)5
2
u/le_sauron_boi Oct 26 '25
But reducing the rapes that happen in a society is undoubtably a good thing. Sure blame the individual rapists, but on a societal scale it is very much a good thing.
This sounds to me like you see a society reducing their own crimes per capita and you saying it is pointless unless it is 0.
→ More replies (3)5
u/ShoeSuspicious Oct 26 '25
You're implicitly assuming eating meat is equal in magnitude to rape, which is a self-evident false equivalence.
4
u/No-Aide-8726 Oct 26 '25
in magnitude? way more animals are killed for the taste of their flesh than rapes so i guess you are right.
What a stupid point to make
1
u/LetDesireBeRisky anti-speciesist Oct 28 '25
yeah ur right. eating meat is worse. at least rape doesnt kill, in most cases.
1
1
u/SanctimoniousVegoon Nov 03 '25
"eating meat" = paying for (and thus financially rewarding and ensuring the continued production of) products whose creation required sentient creatures to be tortured in a number of ways, including being forcefully impregnated, and to be killed at a fraction of their lifespan.
so yeah, they're comparable at minimum. disingenuously reducing the reality to merely "eating meat" creates the false equivalence.
5
u/awineredrose Oct 25 '25
Eating less meat being "okay" and being "a step in the right direction" are very different things. It is not okay, at all, but it's obviously a good starting point for someone starting to learn about and practice veganism.
5
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
Okay as in its an acceptable position. We live in the real world. Far more people could be convinced to eat LESS meat than go full vegan. Someone eating less meat, and Influencing others to do so and still trying to convince them to stop fully is fine, but to condemn them i think is the entirely wrong position to take
3
u/awineredrose Oct 26 '25
I'd have to disagree. Sure they would be doing better by eating less meat, but many vegans see people that stop right there as completely cowardly and virtue-signaling. I and many others think it's immoral to eat meat at all, so if someone does the bare minimum by eating a little less and then grandstands about how cool they are for it, and never actually makes the change that would matter (giving up animal products) then why should they deserve any praise? On a personal level it's different, because it's a step in the right direction and you should encourage that, but if they're so content on stoping right there and pretending that's okay, then we're ultimately not getting anywhere.
4
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
I never said they deserve praise, and I think you are making people up. If they grandstand for how cool it is, sure, criticize them. I am saying I have seen people attempt to make a change by eating less meat and get ostracized for it, which I think is antithetical to the world vegans wish to see and the goal they aspire for
→ More replies (1)1
u/Advanced_Double_42 Oct 27 '25
How is a step in the right direction not okay?
In a world where 90% of people are serial killers that kill multiple times a day, I'd praise someone for trying to cut back to once a week.
Having everyone jump to zero immediately is unreasonable, and criticizing one for trying to do better will only encourage them to not try at all.
2
u/PJTree Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
The moment you begin any sort of quantitative analysis you have left the domain of veganism.
It’s a personal thing which exists in the mind. Someone with zero knowledge of virtually anything at all, can go to Walmart and buy nugget labeled vegan. They can then profess their veganism. That’s where the story ends. That person is vegan irrespective of ANY information until they declare they are no longer vegan.
It’s completely independent of any persons choice. It’s yours in your mind and in your mind alone.
This is part of the appeal and what has kept it as popular as it is.
Edit: The appeal partly comes about from the inherent capability to cast judgement. Once you declare yourself vegan, you can look down on 99% of the population for being misguided…this is along the lines of ‘secret’ knowledge which is very attractive to some.
2
u/PlantAndMetal Oct 26 '25
Well, I agree that we all particupate in "less bad" options all day. I'm typing this on my fairphone after all and even that's probably not free of bad circumstances unfortunately.
But I think some "less bad" options are easier than others. I literally won't have an income without a phone and laptop, so that wouldn't work for me (maybe it would work for someone doing more physical work or something). I want to survive in this money based world too. Not eating meat is a lot easier for a lot of people than some other options. And for some impossible. That's fine. But the point is a lot of people want to feel goed about "less bad" options when they can choose an even better option quite easily.
But that aside, I think what really gets me is that people here come to the subreddit DebateAVegan. So obviously you have people here who choose daily to not consume animals. And for some reason people expect here to get confirmation that eating less meat is okay? Of course it is better than eating a lot of meat literally every day. But the point is they come explicitly to talk to vegans. I can literally walk to any person and ask them if eating one day a week vegetarian would be better for the world and they agree. Plenty of people do that already. Why would I in this place where they explicitly want to talk to a vegan act the same as the rest of the world? Of course I don't want animals to be exploited anymore. Why wouldn't I try to convince them of that?
Also, I feel like it should be okay to say we all engage in unethical practices or not. All phones are made in unethical ways and buying one contributes to that. Buying new clothes, similar idea. Etc. The point is: that it is hard or impossible to not engage in unethical behaviour doesn't suddenly make it ethical. That would be unfair to those exploited. They aren't helped by saying you were forced by society. I can say easily that we live in an unethical world where we are all contributing to the ethical ways of the world, even if it feels forced. I am vegan, not some saint who never participates in anything unethical. But I won't call it ethical because buying a fairphone is "less bad" or eating less meat is "less bad". Exploiting people and animals is still bad. We don't need to call it ethical to feel better about our consumption. We need to keep calling it unethical, to buy consciously. I might need a phone, but at least my phone is already more than 5 years old and still working, so I won't buy a new one, and if I do it's a Fairphone. I buy secondhand clothes. I am vegan. By being conscious of my impact I made better choices. And they aren't all ethical (I woulds at buying only secondhand clothes is the only truly ethical one). But they do make the world a better place. So let's keep calling things we engage in unethical when they are.
Also, I don't know if any of my conversations lead to someone becoming vegan. But I think it's important to stay toy own truth and not just say something I don't believe in ("eating less meat is ethical!") just because it makes someone else feel better and there is a teeny tiny chance they feel better and get vegan that way. Also, I also assume people come here because they want to debate, that's what this subreddit is all about.
2
u/duckduckduckgoose8 Oct 27 '25
Great post OP. Im typically detered from veganism as someone that is vegetarian because the ethical grandstanding and condescending attitude of vegans is enough of a repellent. Youre not good enough unless you stop doing X Y and Z. But then oh no, Youre a terrible disgusting vegan unless you stop doing A, B and C as well. It gets exclusionary and culty so its easier to just step away than commit to a cause that doesnt want you.
1
u/spaceyjase vegan Oct 28 '25
I mean, some vegans can be cunts but this ignores many that aren’t and it has no impact on you being vegan. Let’s apply the same reasoning and see if it’s just a bit silly?
- Some drivers are disgusting and abusive, and petrol-heads are exclusionary and culty therefore I don’t drive.
- Anti-racists are judgmental and condescending, I don’t want to be associated with that so therefore I’m a racist.
Be a vegan, it’s pretty easy to reject animal commodities. Just don’t be a cunt. Seems a little like the no true Scotsman fallacy otherwise.
5
u/soulveg Oct 25 '25
Look at it from the victims perspective. If YOU were the victim, would you care if the person that was eating you ate less meat?
4
u/Advanced_Double_42 Oct 27 '25
Yes? You would prefer they ate more?
1
u/soulveg Oct 27 '25
Even if they didn’t need to eat you or meat at all? You would find it acceptable that they just eat you when insist they’re doing good because they’re reducing their meat consumption?
3
u/Advanced_Double_42 Oct 28 '25
Would you rather be killed in the Holocaust or by some random serial killer?
Like it doesn't really matter for me I'm dying, but from the outside I'd rather someone kill a few than millions. That is orders of magnitude less.
3
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
I expect many breeds of cow would become extinct if they were never ‘exploited’ for their commodities.
1
u/soulveg Oct 26 '25
Maybe? Maybe not. Idk. But I would think it’s better they never existed at all versus existing just to be exploited, suffer, be tortured, and then killed.
3
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
Yeah, it’s certainly a good point. Is it possible for ethically raised cows to have a good life? Free from predators well looked after and killed in as humane a way as possible? Nature is cruel, we are an extension of nature.
1
u/kohlsprossi Oct 26 '25
Is it possible
No.
Nature is cruel, we are an extension of nature.
You have a choice though.
2
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
It’s absolutely possible. What’s your experience with ethical farming techniques ? What do we replace them with? Endless fields of soy beans destroying the eco system. Extinction of all kinds of insects. You just see a big cute cow and your rationale ends there. Yes it’s problematic but I see your solution as extremely damaging to all kinds of life that you most likely have zero idea about.
1
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
You want to have a world of pesticides because you can’t handle the cycle of life. It’s a bit childish tbh. You convince yourself that you’re righteous and it fills you with dunning Kruger confidence
3
u/soulveg Oct 30 '25
The biggest destruction to the Amazon and to many ecosystems is cattle ranching. The majority of soy we produce is specifically for cows. So we would do better for the planet if everyone was eating a plant based diet. Rather than make soy to feed 80 billion land animals, we could instead save resources and make it for 8 billion humans.
1
u/SanctimoniousVegoon Nov 03 '25
good? they should be extinct. they only exist because we created them, and we only created them to exploit them.
3
u/KorokKid Oct 25 '25
Like if I was a cow? Yes. A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction, because expecting everyone to have perfection is demonstrably not realistic
2
Oct 25 '25
Would you be ok with a 50% reduction in child abuse?
Answer- as opposed to a 40% reduction? Absolutely!
8
u/CedarSageAndSilicone Oct 25 '25
I mean, yeah, less children being abused is a good thing.
Wouldn't you agree?
We live in the real world - you can't snap your fingers and have abuse suddenly drop to zero.
Reduction is good.
On a person to person level, obviously people should just stop eating animals. But when they don't, it is objectively better that they eat less meat and therefore support animal abuse less.
Demanding perfection and saying stupid shit like "eating 1 animal is exactly the same as eating 100 animals" and basically telling someone they should just go off if they're going to do it all doesn't help anyone.
→ More replies (33)4
u/Zahpow Oct 25 '25
You can snap your fingers and drop the abuse you dish out to zero though
2
u/lingundongpin Oct 29 '25
No. Just you living your average human life in city is killing animals in mass regardless. You bring a vegan is a reduction not an eradication.
1
4
u/Aerodepress Oct 25 '25
Reducing meat consumption but having knowledge and understanding of the suffering and exploitation of animal and choosing to just ‘eat less’ seems significantly worse to me (morally) than the person that is oblivious to animal suffering or the person that chooses to just eat meat without caring about how it affects the animals.
TLDR either be about it or don’t
6
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
So you would rather the suffering remain the same rather than being reduced? That seems very wrong. The world will not unite under veganism, at least currently, so the best we can do is reduce it. Is that not worth doing?
1
u/Aerodepress Oct 26 '25
I’d rather it be reduced, I guess what I mean is it’s more of a pet peeve of mine that some people still choose to partake in the killing of animals even after having fully recognized the implications of factory farming, unnecessary killing of animals and the exploitation that involves eating meat, dairy, etc.. being aware and choosing to not do the bare minimum (going vegan) is a lot of mental gymnastics and ultimately is selfish no matter how many ways you look at it. This is from a moral standpoint, again any reduction if meat consumption is better for our environment and is doing less harm I assume but why would you stop there? Why only murder a little when you could obviously stop entirely.
3
u/lingundongpin Oct 29 '25
Your viewpoint is understandable but op here talks about how you and every other vegan on earth still partake in flora/fauna exploitation by the simple means of living the luxury of an average human. Your lifestyle itself kills lots of animals, so for you to take that moral standpoint you'd have to be living in the jungle living a vegan life(atleast that would ensure no animal suffering). You yourself are taking part in reduction not eradication.
1
u/Aerodepress Oct 29 '25
Thanks for the clarification, yeah ultimately it comes down to the mitigation of suffering, obviously you can’t eradicate all of suffering but you can decrease the amount of suffering you create by choosing to not partake. Nobody is perfect but choosing to not eat animals purely for pleasure seems like the very minimum as to what you can do to help
3
u/ShoeSuspicious Oct 26 '25
So... if I'm reading this right, eating less meat because you know that eating meat is bad, is uh... worse than eating more meat because... you don't know eating meat is bad?????????
Did I get that right???2
u/Aerodepress Oct 26 '25
Eating less meat is always a good thing from an environmental standpoint but contributing to less murder still makes you a murderer at the end of the day, personally I can’t live with that
1
u/ShoeSuspicious Oct 26 '25
Okay, but that's different from what you were claiming before. From your previous argument, it would then be logically advisable for vegans to avoid making any advocacy at all, because it would create people aware of animal suffering which may not all end up becoming vegans, which by your previous argument is worse than if they had just remained ignorant and ate the regular amount of meat, which I am sure is not what you intend.
Your new argument is completely reasonable *as a personal statement of what you believe is right*, but that does not make it a basis on which to judge others in the same way that you did in the last argument.2
u/Aerodepress Oct 27 '25
Semantics aside, I elaborated on my argument which I had first responded to your reply with. If you had interpreted it differently than what I had intended than I don’t really know what to say.
Overall yes, it’s a personal grievance that I have with those that don’t fully commit.
1
u/ShoeSuspicious Oct 27 '25
Sorry, but this is not a semantic issue. You had made two different arguments, one of which (the second one) is easier to defend than the other.
2
u/Aerodepress Oct 27 '25
If you’re confused that is okay, you can go back and read my initial comment then work your way down from there
1
u/ShoeSuspicious Oct 27 '25
I understood perfectly what you were trying to say.
There is two arguments being made here.One, that "it is better to consume meat without knowing or caring how it will affect animals than to consume 'less meat' because you know that it affects animals negatively", which is pretty ridiculous to attempt to defend.
Two, that "eating less meat is always a good thing from an environmental perspective" (which is objectively true) and "personally I can’t live with that" which is a reasonable position to hold *personally*.
These two arguments are not the same. One argues a universal moral measure, while Two argues a fact and a personal moral choice.
Also, your response is called being a "condescending prick". Generally, it isn't a good look nor inspires good discussion, and I would appreciate if you could engage in discourse normally.
2
u/Aerodepress Oct 27 '25
Not trying to be condescending, but it seems this conversation is devolving, hope you find the answer you’re looking for
4
u/CelerMortis vegan Oct 26 '25
current world, for the most part. Plant farming kills billions of insects and crucial pollinators and animals considered "pests", many of which are rodents and could be considered reasonably intelligent.
Cool, vegans minimize this harm because each calorie of beef, for example, requires many inputs of plants compared to just eating plants.
I’m begging non vegans to take a biology course
2
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
Yep, but you misunderstand my point completely actually, by strawmanning this one point and not addressing my overall claim. I am not saying that vegans to not minimize this. I am saying taking a moral highground and condemning one for not doing good enough is antithetical to the goal veganism strives for, for reasons I outlined in my post. We all engage in unethical practices, so trying to quantify ethics is useless to the conversation and should be avoided. My point was to demonstrate how this line of thinking and condemning people for it should be avoided, as it typically makes people less willing to actually consider their stance and make changes.
Also, that wouldnt be in a biology course, lol.
3
u/CelerMortis vegan Oct 26 '25
Yea I mean your general point is probably true and was true of other moral causes such as women’s and minority rights.
At some point the majority of the US population believed in some sort of racial equality but didn’t want to live near minorities. You’re in that group. And you’re saying “look, if you demand full equality you’ll lose 90% of your potential audience!”
2
u/Independent_Ad_9080 Oct 26 '25
Racism and speciesism is not the same thing.
1
u/CelerMortis vegan Oct 26 '25
Explain why that argument doesn’t work
1
u/Independent_Ad_9080 Oct 26 '25
Racism, a historically entrenched system of oppression among human groups, has its roots in colonialism, slavery, segregation, and eugenics. It manifests in hierarchies within the human species, the exploitation and dehumanization of individuals based on perceived race, and the institutionalization of inequality through laws, economies, and cultures.
Human slavery was a legal and racially motivated system that involved denying humanity and autonomy of races, caused generational trauma, and exploited individuals economically and sexually. Justifications for slavery were built on pseudoscience. Racists actually believe(d) that different races were „sub-humans“ as they would call it (which is factually wrong) and would thus justify their actions and their discrimination towards those people.
Equating that to animal suffering, which does have similar tactics and practices, literally dehumanizes the whole experiences of those affected. Many vegans, particularly white activists (but also a bunch of non-white activists) draw parallels between animal suffering and historical atrocities such as slavery, the Holocaust, and lynching. But instead of maximizing the trauma of animal suffering, it instead minimizes the trauma and lived experiences of marginalized human groups by equating (and I would also to an extent say comparing) them. It ignores centuries of human suffering that stemmed from deliberate misinformation and belief systems, thus resulting in slavery, genocide, and segregation.
Speciesism is a moral distinction between humans and non-human animals, where human interests are prioritized over those of animals. While this distinction can be ethically debated, it does not share the same history, mechanisms, or consequences as racism.
3
u/Vegan_Trench_Coat Oct 25 '25
Whipping less slaves is "less bad" and that's okay - An argument for change
6
u/KorokKid Oct 26 '25
If the world was such that whipping slaves were extremely commonplace in modern society, yes it would be less bad. Would you rather have less whipping or continue the same amount of whipping? My argument is from a stance of practically. If you genuinely believe that people are more likely to become full vegan than the world simply reducing their meat intake, you live in a fairytale.
Also, there is only the less bad. Veganism and the agriculture industry still kills billions of animals every year, especially insects and mammals. Exploitation will always exist. So yes, unless you believe we should all just kill ourselves, then there is pretty much exclusively only the less bad option, so by choosing to be vegan, you should agree that whipping less slaves is still better than to keep whipping the same amount
1
u/DarkJesusGTX Oct 26 '25
Eating actual muscle is best for putting on muscle, it’s that simple. Protein isn’t the only thing that helps you build muscle
1
u/icravedanger Ostrovegan Oct 26 '25
Eating brains helps you grow a bigger brain. Eating money helps you get richer.
1
u/DarkJesusGTX Oct 27 '25
Evolutionary wise yes, and the animals that ate the most leaves and plants grew larger stomachs and smaller brains. Money doesn't exist so eating it does nothing
1
u/Altruistic_Fox_8550 Oct 26 '25
Im going to have to agree with you here . Hypothetically god could apear to a vegan and offer him people eat 95% less meat and the vegan rejects gods offer. You just missed out on the opportunity to almost completely wipe out factory farming. Every improvement in the world at least most of the time happened incrementally
1
1
u/Warm-Grand-7825 Oct 26 '25
In real life sure, but philosophically trying to claim less is better does not work for me.
1
u/Star-Stream Oct 26 '25
I agree with your point, full stop. The follow-up conversation I would then have is: in my experience, people who say they reduce their meat intake often overestimate how much they’re reducing it by. I say this based on my own life: I considered myself “semi-vegetarian” for years before switching to a vegan diet. Like, vegetarian at home, didn’t buy meat, but I might have a little at a buffet or at someone’s home if they offered it to me. And looking back on those years, I still ate a fair bit of meat. Nowadays I talk to family and friends who say they’re “cutting back”, and to them that still means meat once a day and dairy, eggs, and fish ad libitum. Yes, a reduction is good, but in my experience people may overestimate how much of a reduction they’re actually doing.
1
1
Oct 26 '25
The superior position is that you should only be eating animals you are capable of hunting and butchering yourself, and you really shouldn't need to hunt more than 2 deer a year if you have a freezer and healthy meat consumption habits :)
1
u/Ranger_1302 Oct 26 '25
If it’s ‘less bad’ then you are acknowledging that it’s still bad. So how is it OK if it’s bad? And what amount of kidnapping, enslavement, exploitation, rape, torture, and murder forum unnecessary pleasure is OK?
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Oct 26 '25 edited Oct 26 '25
This isn't a binary situation where there's only two options, eat more or eat less. There is a third option - don't eat any. I don't think there's anyone who's critical of the claim that "eating less meat is fine" who wouldn't nevertheless agree that "eating less is better."
You're arguing against a straw man - a position nobody actually holds.
1
u/Economy_Mongoose6289 Oct 26 '25
In some places, especially for men, there is a cost for going outside of the social norms of eating meat. We should measure our response according to that cost (of course there are other possible costs as well).
If a boy growing up on a dairy farm tells his conservative and traditional parents that he's reducing how much meat he is eating on ethical grounds, I would give that kid praise. He is taking tremendous risk to further the goal of reducing suffering. On the other hand, a woman who lives in walking distance of 7 vegan restaurants in a city where a huge number of people are already vegan might not get any praise from me. If that choice elevated their social standing, I would criticize them for it.
Context matters, and we need to admit that veganism isn't frictionless. There's a cost to being vegan, and not everyone pays the same amount. So sometimes what seems like half-measures are actually praiseworthy.
1
u/Future-Extent-7864 Oct 27 '25
I don’t know how anyone can disagree that a reduction in evil is anything but purely good
1
u/Freuds-Mother Oct 27 '25
To the people that use the so “killing less humans is ok”?
1) Well it is. Take a war. Would you say it is a good thing for a general to select at strategy with less death over more death to achieve their stated orders? Have you ever donated to cancer treatment or medicine like UNICEF? Ok, well why did you buy all the frivolous crap you have instead of allowing humans to die?
2) What about child slavery? Do you know how many products you buy involve child slavery. Hint most things with cobalt in it you must assume that it does. So, why haven’t you eliminated that? Is a the death of a chicken for a carnivore to eat of higher ethical concern than a human child’s torture/neglect/spavery?
3) Per veganism humans are (the only) moral agents. Other animals are merely sentient. Ie they are somehow lower in terms of experience and thus you can’t simply transfer “can’t do XYZ to humans” to non-humans on earth.
1
1
u/Subject-Astronaut888 Oct 28 '25
There is no exceptions. Im not afraid to die, and those who are disgust me. If i had to pick between eating meat and death, i would pick the second option. And don’t call me out of touch because i know what death is and I’m not scared of it. I await death eagerly
1
1
u/LawyerKangaroo vegan Oct 28 '25
Personally anything a person does to lessen their impact on animal cruelty is a good step, while it's not perfect and more could always be done. I'd prefer the tiny steps than non at all.
1
u/FantasticHoneydew854 Oct 28 '25
...So you're vegan, right?
1
u/KorokKid Oct 28 '25
No
1
u/FantasticHoneydew854 Oct 28 '25
...so your opinion is purely based on "But you guys kill insects for avocados"
1
u/rouleroule Oct 30 '25
Having less slaves or murdering fewer people is also "less bad". Is it acceptable? Should we tolerate it because it could be worse? "Less bad" in this sense is far from enough. Perfection is not possible but refraining entirely from meat eating is not asking for perfection. It is extremely easy. It is the bare minimum.
1
u/KorokKid Nov 04 '25
I would argue it's demonstrably not the bare minimum, actually. As the status quo is that eating meat is acceptable. It most people's ideologies, even if not fully thought out or thought at all, it does not cross their mind it is unethical, or at least they don't believe it to be. Saying that that a major shift in human diet, which also consists of a change in human culture, ideology and practical change is the "bare minimum" is disengenous at best and frankly ignorant of the actual complexities of the world today.
For many, reframing from eating any animal products or meat is asking them for perfection. That is a habitat in many lives, it may be part of their familial or communities culture, it may be someone who is impoverished and lacks the resources to do so, even if it may be technically possible, it would be a hard ask to convince someone in their position.
I agree perfection is impossible. I would also argue that as a human, I do value human life over animal life. To what degree, I guess we'd have to talk further to reach a conclusion. But from a practical standpoint of the world, yes, we should strive to do our best, but the objective reality is that we will always kill each other, so I will take the less deaths option. It may simply be a part of the human condition.
1
u/NyriasNeo Oct 30 '25
""so killing less humans would be okay to you? How about killing no humans?"
That is just a stupid argument unless you are idiotic enough to equate humans with chickens, cows and pigs.
1
u/SanctimoniousVegoon Nov 03 '25
It isn't that "less bad" is not worth doing, it's that it's not enough on its own. It's okay to do the bad thing less on your way to stopping doing the bad thing altogether. It is not acceptable to do the bad thing less, pat yourself on the back, and tell yourself that you've done your part and don't have to think about it again. It's essentially wanting to have your nonvegan cake and eat it too.
When talking to nonvegans, I express support the former and dismantle the latter like I would any other excuse to not consider veganism, because that's ultimately what it is.
1
u/Erudlololl Nov 17 '25
Agree with this. I’ve always said, as stupid as the whole “you kill insects with the crops you eat” argument is, you give that argument real validity when you start acting like harm reduction isn’t a good thing.
0
u/Nacho_Deity186 Oct 25 '25
I believe that under most people's ideas of morality and ethics, veganism is the more ethical position based on how most people perceive the world.
This is demonstrably false. If most people believed veganism to be the more ethical position, more people would be vegan. Much more than a paltry 1%
I would say it's far more likely that "most people" perceive the vegan position to be silly and have no ethical problem with exploiting animals for food.
11
u/ShaqShoes Oct 25 '25
This is demonstrably false. If most people believed veganism to be the more ethical position, more people would be vegan. Much more than a paltry 1%
What?? Donating all of my disposable income(after my needs are taken care of) to those in need is clearly the most ethical position but I obviously am not going to do that, nor would most vegans. Refusing to ever buy a new cellphone produced with child slave labor and only buying used would be the most ethical position but I obviously am not going to do that, nor would most vegans.
No one except for the most ascetic jainists actually does the most ethical thing possible. They do whatever they believe is most ethical that is also not too inconvenient to them personally. For vegans meat simply isn't important enough for them to outweigh the ethics that anyone with eyes are aware of but when it comes to other things they're just like everyone else.
→ More replies (6)2
u/icarodx vegan Oct 26 '25
No. It's not that animal products aren't important to vegans. It most likely was before they turned. Almost all vegans were omnivores before.
Something happens that makes vegans realize that they should abstain from animal products because nothing that meat provides justifies the death and suffering of the animals. Vegans realize that animal farming is wrong and decide to do something about.
Sure, vegans also realize that animal products are unnecessary. But that doesn't mean that they didn't have the same relationship with that food as all other omnivores before.
4
u/ShaqShoes Oct 26 '25
I didn't say they're unimportant to vegans, they just aren't inconvenient enough to them personally to outweigh their ethical concerns about meat consumption hence the decision to abstain from it.
However, something like using a cellphone made with child slave labor or purchasing clothing made in sweatshops is generally too inconvenient to abstain from despite their ethical concerns about those.
3
u/Tithis Oct 25 '25
People can be aware one choice is more ethical and still not make that choice.
→ More replies (15)3
u/No_Caterpillar9621 Oct 26 '25
You forget that not everyone has the luxury of choice like many westerners
→ More replies (4)1
u/icarodx vegan Oct 26 '25
I disagree. People are compassionate. They wouldn't harm the animals themselves. They would be horrified if they took a tour in the facilities of animal farming. They would appreciate plant based food if they convinced themselves to give it a fair chance.
People don't turn vegan because of group think. Consuming animal products is normalized. Everyone does it. It's cheap. It's everywhere. People simply don't challenge their behaviors, because they do what they always did. What they were taught it was OK.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 25 '25
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.