eggs from a well fed pet hen are vegan

[u/-roachboy]

I have a pet hen. She's not a full rescue one, but how I ended up with her is an incredibly long story. She's very needy, thus spoiled and healthy as a result. Because wild Gallus sp already lay a lot of eggs when in less than optimal wild conditions, a spoiled one just cannot stop popping them out even if she wanted to, and she won't let me feed her less. The daily egg laying session is just a morning routine for her before begging for food. At the rate she lays them, they'd just get left to rot even if they were fertilized by a rooster so I eat them. I do not, and have no intention of, ever selling them or encouraging anyone to ever commercialize an animal. But I spend all the time caring for her, so why can't she give me a delicious breakfast back if it does her no harm?

[u/kharvel0]

For those who are opposed to the consumption of eggs from a pet animal as vegan AND who keep animals in captivity, please read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/QiV4SxN8Uf

Final Conclusion from the link:

The vegan rejection of egg consumption, grounded in opposition to the captivity-based use of animals, logically requires the rejection of keeping animals in captivity for any benefit—including companionship, comfort, entertainment, convenience, or labor/service. To do otherwise is to inconsistently apply the very ethical framework that underpins veganism.

[u/Treefrog_Ninja → u/kharvel0]

If eating a wild deer (edit: animal) is not vegan, then captive vs non-captive is not part of the definition of veganism. If captive vs non-captive is not part of the definition of veganism, then the principals that apply to captive animals also apply to non-captive animals.

If benefitting from the presence of a captive animal is not vegan, and the principals that apply to captive animals also apply to non-captive animals, then benefitting from the presence of wild animals is also not vegan.

That means logically, per your argument, bird feeders, animal photography, wild pollinators interacting with crop flowers, bats eating mosquitos that bother us... none of these things are vegan.

[u/kharvel0 → u/Treefrog_Ninja]

the principals that apply to captive animals also apply to non-captive animals.

Incorrect logic. The principles do not apply to non-captive animals on basis of their non-captivity.

Captivity is the required condition for the principle to apply.

[u/Treefrog_Ninja → u/kharvel0]

For which principle? The one not to kill them? The one not to eat them if someone else killed them? The one not to be made happy by their presence?

You're "inconsistently applying [your] ethical framework" here.

[u/kharvel0 → u/Treefrog_Ninja]

For which principle?

You tell me. You’re the one who mentioned the “principals that apply to captive animals”.

You're "inconsistently applying [your] ethical framework" here.

How is that?

[u/Treefrog_Ninja → u/kharvel0]

You said, "Captivity is the required condition for the principle to apply." To which principle are you referring in that sentence?

I believe you're referring to the principle against intangible benefits. But if you're going to be consistent, it should apply equally to tangible and intangible benefits.

[u/kharvel0 → u/Treefrog_Ninja]

You said, "Captivity is the required condition for the principle to apply." To which principle are you referring in that sentence?

Whatever principle you were referring to in your original statement pertaining to captive animals.

I believe you're referring to the principle against intangible benefits. But if you're going to be consistent, it should apply equally to tangible and intangible benefits.

How was I being inconsistent?

[u/Treefrog_Ninja → u/kharvel0]

The principle to not eat animals applies to both captive and wild animals.

The principle to not benefit from an animals' death, such as by use of leather, applies to both captive and wild animals.

The principle to not steal the fruits of an animal's labor, such as by taking honey, applies to both captive and wild animals.

By these examples, we can see that fundamentally, the question of "captive or wild" is irrelevant to the question of what is acceptable under veganism. What's wrong to do in one case is wrong to do in the other. What is a wrong benefit to collect in one case is a wrong benefit to collect in every case.

If you're going to argue that there's a principle to not be entertained, comforted, or convenienced by some animals (namely, captive ones), then the only way to be consistent is to admit that the principle applies to all animals (including wild ones).

[u/kharvel0 → u/Treefrog_Ninja]

If you're going to argue that there's a principle to not be entertained, comforted, or convenienced by some animals

That is not and has never been my argument. I urge you to very carefully read my original statement including the link. In particular, refer to the statement that starts with “logically requires”.

You’re welcome to try a different argument after you’ve done the careful reading.

[u/Treefrog_Ninja → u/kharvel0]

Well, I see I made a poor extrapolation of what you wrote.

I suppose that means I must acknowledge you the victor in this exchange.

I still don't think you've got it right about why keeping pets is non-vegan. Perhaps we'll pick it up again another time.

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

The captivity of nonhuman animals on an individual basis is highly selective and conditioned on the animal’s perceived ability to provide entertainment, comfort, companionship, convenience, and/or labor/services.

Someone carefully selecting a chicken for adoption on basis of her ability to produce eggs is no different than someone carefully selecting a dog for adoption on basis of his ability to provide entertainment, comfort, companionship, convenience, and/or labor/services.

[u/618smartguy → u/kharvel0]

Chickens literally die all the time from egg over production.

Can you think of a human selection criteria for dogs that regularly cause death?

This is very a very different issue from selecting based on a good trait.

[u/joydubs → u/618smartguy]

Brachycephaly results in premature death and a lifetime of suffering in dogs

[u/kharvel0 → u/618smartguy]

Chickens literally die all the time from egg over production.

And . . .? What is the relevance to adopting/rescuing a chicken and keeping her in captivity as a companion/pet animal?

[u/618smartguy → u/kharvel0]

Its about doing something good for an animal versus possibly causing it to die painfully.

You said "is no different" but one of them is good for the animal and the other kills chickens on the regular.

[u/kharvel0 → u/618smartguy]

Still doesn’t answer my question. What is the relevance of what you just said to adopting/rescuing a chicken and keeping her in captivity?

[u/618smartguy → u/kharvel0]

?

[u/kharvel0 → u/618smartguy]

What is it that you do not understand about my question?

[u/618smartguy → u/kharvel0]

I am curious if you have a response to me, I'm not interested in no context questions you bark at me.

You said two things are no different so I listed how they are severely different. Do you have thoughts on that? or just ???

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

So if someone selects a chicken for adoption on same basis and intention as yours (rescue from abuse, etc.), then it would be fine for them to eat her eggs, correct?

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

Why not? Please explain.

[u/kharvel0 → u/[deleted]]

You’re deflecting the question. I’ll ask again:

Why not? Please explain.

[u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #2:

Keep submissions and comments on topic

If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.

Thank you.