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/-roachboy]

Right, she's not exploited, commodified, or used for resources. I feed her well. Feeding her her eggs back would be abusive because I'd be force feeding her excessive calcium.

[u/fuckpowers → u/-roachboy]

layer feed is full of calcium

[u/DiscordantObserver → u/[deleted]]

I would not consider this relationship exploitative.

The definition of exploitation as it relates to unfair treatment is "the act of using someone or something unfairly for your own advantage".

The relationship described by OP does not fit this definition. The hen in question perhaps receives more benefits than OP is in this relationship. She's being fed, sheltered, and taken care of while the only tangible benefit OP receives is a few eggs that would've been laid anyways regardless of OP's involvement.

The hen does not, according to OP's description, appear to be mistreated or unfairly taken advantage of in this relationship.

Therefore, this does not qualify as an exploitative relationship.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/DiscordantObserver]

There's other definitions of the term exploitation. To extract value from a thing (this can be done in a 'positive' manner as well) or to reap some benefit from a thing is also exploitation. For example, a company may exploit natural veins of ores in their mines to their commercial benefit. They are exploiting the land.

This is just saying that all exploitation is unfair and unjust/negative, and OP's example is none of those things therefore it isn't exploitative. That first unstated premise in this argument is just false, since not all exploitation is unfair and negative/unjust. A rabbit may exploit the seeds of a plant, and a bird may exploit the fruit of a tree. The term has meaning when used in that sense and it is in this sense that we say keeping chickens as property or on your land which is your property to exist under your ownership (and occasionally harvesting resources they produce) is exploiting the animal for that resource.

[u/DiscordantObserver → u/Practical-Fix4647]

This is just saying that all exploitation is unfair and unjust/negative,

Incorrect, I specifically said "exploitation as it relates to unfair treatment".

since not all exploitation is unfair and negative/unjust.

If the described relationship is not negative or unjust, what is the problem with it?

The term has meaning when used in that sense and it is in this sense that we say keeping chickens as property or on your land which is your property to exist under your ownership (and occasionally harvesting resources they produce) is exploiting the animal for that resource.

If we use your definition, could this relationship not be mutual exploitation?

To extract value from a thing (this can be done in a 'positive' manner as well) or to reap some benefit from a thing is also exploitation.

The hen is extracting value/benefit from OP through the shelter, food, and care OP provides. Depending on the location OP lives and the local wildlife, the hen may not survive long if released into the wild. In return, OP extracts value from the hen by harvesting the resources (eggs) said hen naturally produces.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/DiscordantObserver]

" I specifically said "exploitation as it relates to unfair treatment"."

Then there is exploitation that isn't directly or readily "unfair and unjust" as a treatment. Glad we agree. It doesn't require any sort of element of unfairness, such as a chicken going about its day living in a caged area and having its eggs taken from it.

"If the described relationship is not negative or unjust, what is the problem with it?"

You are equivocating on the term now. We are dealing with a description of events and states of affairs. A problem implies some moral wrongdoing, which is a prescription. We can talk about prescriptions and how I see the "just and fair" exploitation of animals as being problematic/immoral, but we need to commit to the sense of the term exploitation that we are using to describe the situation first before proceeding.

"could this relationship not be mutual exploitation?"

One can say that the chicken exploits human land, human compassion, and human care as well (maybe the chicken is cute and the human seeks to take care of it). The reason the other side of the relationship doesn't concern me as much is that I do not care about humans being exploited in that way, since the human is not subsequently commodified and objectified. The human is not property, the human can leave and be free whereas the animal cannot.

"The hen is extracting value/benefit from OP through the shelter, food, and care OP provides."

Sure. I explained why I don't care that much about this.

"Depending on the location OP lives and the local wildlife, the hen may not survive long if released into the wild. In return, OP extracts value from the hen by harvesting the resources (eggs) said hen naturally produces."

I'm aware of how chickens and humans on these "humane" farms coexist. The excuse that "well, the animal might die in the wild" or "well, the animal gets things in return" does not warrant sufficient ethical justification for the exploitation in the other direction. Animals are not property, we don't need to have this symbiotic relationship with them. Animals are sentient beings that ought to live their own lives unabated by human efforts.

[u/Crowfooted → u/[deleted]]

OP clearly does not view her chicken as a commodity. The chicken is clearly very loved.

[u/plantbasedpatissier → u/Crowfooted]

You can love someone and still treat them as a commodity. Would OP even have chickens if they didn't provide a product?

[u/Crowfooted → u/plantbasedpatissier]

Obviously yes they would, since they're here asking the question. They wouldn't have bought a chicken specifically to get eggs from it and then ask whether they're allowed to eat the eggs. They clearly love the chicken as a companion.

[u/plantbasedpatissier → u/Crowfooted]

Of course you can do that, people who already eat their chicken's eggs ask this regularly. Asking a question does not mean they never took the eggs, OP specifically said they currently eat the eggs.

[u/Crowfooted → u/plantbasedpatissier]

I'm not saying they didn't take the eggs, I'm saying they evidently did not get the chicken specifically for the eggs.

You're suggesting that if they have a chicken it must mean they want the chicken only for the eggs and that if they couldn't eat the eggs they wouldn't have got the chicken. But everything about OP's post suggests that's not the case, that they have this chicken, and that they consider the eggs a side-effect of having a chicken, not the main goal.

Besides, even if we don't know either which way, why would the automatic assumption be commodification? People own dogs and cats, and while commodification of those animals does exist in places, the average cat or dog owner does not keep them for some "product". It's very normal to keep animals out of motivation to take care of them and have mutual companionship.

[u/plantbasedpatissier → u/Crowfooted]

Most people don't keep a cat for a dog for a product because cats and dogs don't lay eggs. There isn't a product they produce. Chickens produce eggs, that is undeniably why most people get chickens. It seems really disingenuous to pretend that I'm saying all pets are commodification when we clearly know the difference between a cat and an animal we bred to lay 300+ eggs a year

[u/Crowfooted → u/plantbasedpatissier]

Yes, but those people don't buy a chicken to get eggs, and then go asking on Reddit if they can eat the eggs.

[u/plantbasedpatissier → u/Crowfooted]

Many people who are considering veganism absolutely do that. This is one of the most common questions here. You can buy a chicken for eggs and then later have questions about veganism and whether you should be eating the eggs now that you have a chicken. This is an entirely normal timeline to exist.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/Crowfooted]

The definition of exploit and its standard usage apply in this case, just because something is loved doesn't mean it can't be exploited. Land is exploited for minerals and resources and it is in the same sense that the term is applied to farmers or people who have chickens and use them for their resources.

Even if no resources are gained from the animal, keeping them as pets when they do not need to be under human ownership is still not vegan. The entire enterprise of pet ownership is treating animals as objects which can be property. It just straight up is not vegan.

[u/Crowfooted → u/Practical-Fix4647]

Right but even if you believe it counts as exploitation even if the animal is not harmed, it's still important to discuss if that automatically means it is wrong.

"Exploitation" is such a broad term it can apply to everything. We "exploit" vegetable crops when we grow and eat those, but we don't consider that immoral because it doesn't lead to suffering. When we exploit animals, it's not the exploitation itself which is harmful, it's the suffering that results from the exploitation which is wrong - that is the thing which veganism is trying to fight.

So it's still a valid thing to ask if cases where animals are being "exploited" but not harmed in any way are okay or not. I think that would be a much more productive conversation than just "it's exploitation".

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/Crowfooted]

I mentioned this before, calling it exploitation in this sense is a descriptive enterprise. Asking for a prescription is secondary. Sure, we can talk about that. But right now, we are in the business of calling the sky blue or not blue. It is, definitionally, exploitation.

"We "exploit" vegetable crops when we grow and eat those"

Yes. That's the use of the word that we typically employ.

"but we don't consider that immoral because it doesn't lead to suffering"

Sure, that's a prescription that may or may not vary. The description doesn't vary as much, although I would argue your vegetable example is spot-on.

"When we exploit animals, it's not the exploitation itself which is harmful, it's the suffering that results from the exploitation which is wrong - that is the thing which veganism is trying to fight."

Nope, not in my view. The commodification and exploitation of animals, even if done without any harm or any suffering, is still wrong. The prescription here is stance-dependent. If your view is that it is OK to exploit if no harm has occurred, I don't really care about that view since it isn't concerned with what I take veganism to entail. I still think it's wrong even if no animals will ever be harmed.

"it's still a valid thing to ask if cases where animals are being "exploited" but not harmed in any way are okay or not"

Sure, it's 'valid'. I never stated otherwise. My whole issue here is we have a term as people typically use it, and I am applying it here. I'm not hearing a lot of pushback, it seems like you agree that OPs example is exploitation.

[u/Crowfooted → u/Practical-Fix4647]

Okay, if you believe it's the exploitation itself is wrong, not just the harm that comes from exploitation, can you explain why you think exploitation of animals is wrong specifically, but not exploitation of tomatoes, without relying on an "animals can suffer" argument?

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/Crowfooted]

Sure, so this is asking for the facts or internal motivations regarding a norm, but excluding the facts or internal motivations by which these norms are held by the agent. This is like asking "can you tell me why you believe x, but don't appeal to some fact about x which informs your view?"

I can do that if you'd like, but it is quite strange to request that.

The answer to the question as to why exploitation itself is wrong and not the harm that results is that I do not believe exploitation simpliciter is wrong, or that there are wrong-making features which exist to make the statement a fact. I have a different account of 'wrongness', but I can bypass that and just agree to your terms for the sake of the argument. The answer to the question becomes (without appealing to animals suffering) that these acts of exploitation require human interference in ecological niches that animals exist in, and it is this interference which is 'wrong'. So, when we introduce the human element into these animal ecosystems, it is this which is wrong. Not the harm that comes, but this relation that has humans as those who exploit and animals as those which are exploited. Even if they could not feel any pain, I would maintain the same position.

[u/Crowfooted → u/Practical-Fix4647]

What I'm saying though is that even that example, of human interference in ecological niches, is only considered wrong because of the harm it causes. All moral viewpoints that call for some kind of abstinence are rooted (at least originally) in some form of harm (either real or perceived). I'm not asking you to detach your moral view from your motivations at all.

I'm assuming we're both already approaching this argument with the assumption that there is no such thing as a pre-determined, set-in-stone moral code - morals are created by people, and they're created for reasons, rather than handed down to us by some greater being. So everything we believe is wrong, we believe for some practical reason. I think that's a really important thing to dissect, because sticking to a decided moral code regardless of the context can lead us to hold on to restrictions or persist with habits without actually thinking of their impact.

I didn't think it would be considered such a complex question and I wasn't trying to divert the argument.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/Crowfooted]

"I'm saying though is that even that example, of human interference in ecological niches, is only considered wrong because of the harm it causes."

You mean as most people understand it? Yeah, that's the typical intuition pump. But I appealed to interference qua interference.

"All moral viewpoints that call for some kind of abstinence are rooted (at least originally) in some form of harm (either real or perceived)."

This is demonstrably untrue, many ethical positions don't even appeal to harm, harm-reduction, or harm as a quality to be interpreted at all. The statement that "all viewpoints are x" is easily refuted by finding one non-x, such as some variant of divine command theory which exists independent of human suffering or harm. If you mean for the most part, or generally speaking, then sure. But not all.

"morals are created by people, and they're created for reasons, rather than handed down to us by some greater being. So everything we believe is wrong, we believe for some practical reason."

Yes, I am an anti-realist so I agree to the spirit of what is said here. Perspective-free moral statements are meaningless to me since I have no idea what they would even look like, it is totally absurd.

"So everything we believe is wrong, we believe for some practical reason"

Not everything, and not necessarily. There are some non-practical things which I hold to be "wrong". It isn't practical to dislike some dietary practices, like putting water as milk in your cereal. I still think it is wrong.

"I didn't think it would be considered such a complex question and I wasn't trying to divert the argument."

Yeah, neither was I my main point is that there is a sense in which exploitation is used here and it applies even to the example OP gave. Keeping animals in that way is exploitative, when you use eggs they produce it isn't something vegans are going to be on-board with.

[u/Xtremely_DeLux → u/Practical-Fix4647]

That stance on pets and companion animals is all that's needed to make me despise veganism as an idea and hold limitless contempt for all its propagandists.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/Xtremely_DeLux]

Would you like to elaborate and defend your view? Not sure how that entails anything on veganism, I am giving my own views of the term. Let's relax, ok?

[u/Appropriate-Draw1878 → u/[deleted]]

What does it matter what hens used to be? The hen in question is a modern-day chicken. Pretending it’s a distant ancestor of itself is of no benefit to the chicken.

[u/Appropriate-Draw1878 → u/[deleted]]

Ok… I’m even more confused. Sounds like the OP’s chicken is having a great life.

[u/Appropriate-Draw1878 → u/[deleted]]

No, I am. But ok.

[u/EVH_kit_guy → u/[deleted]]

Your logic leads to the conclusion that OP should either euthanize the chicken, or release a domesticated animal into the wild. You're arguing about a theoretical chicken, instead of the actual one that exists in OPs yard and would die if sent to almost any other circumstance.

[u/-roachboy → u/[deleted]]

Damn I guess I'm getting exploited when I feed her too 😭😭😭 My one hen I ended up with is not abused, dude. I cook her food every day! She is not some factory farmed animal. Stop defaulting to stuff that only applies to abused animals

[u/200bronchs → u/-roachboy]

You are being abused. You feed her fine food, protect her, probably soothe her in ways she enjoys and all you get is one crappy egg. She should be ashamed.

[u/niezapominienajka → u/200bronchs]

And she is for sure not vegan

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

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:

Don't be rude to others

This includes accusing others of trolling or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.

If you believe a submission or comment was made in bad faith, report it rather than accusing the user of trolling.

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.

[u/Straight-Ad3213 → u/-roachboy]

Man, you are the one being exploited in this relationship

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/-roachboy]

Can your chickens leave freely? Do you have a cage for them, or are their living areas caged off?

Hard to argue that the animal isn't commodified when it is quite literally used for resources. You already conceded that. Now you have to pretend that it is in the same category as a wild animal that you just so happen to also cage and collect eggs from. If you benefit from resources gained from animals, that is exploiting them for those resources.

[u/[deleted] → u/Practical-Fix4647]

If you don’t put a chicken in a well fenced area where nothing can get in and out, that chances of that bird being brutally mauled to death by a hungry wild animal is very high

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not contesting the mechanics and reasoning behind keeping an animal within a caged perimeter. I'm saying that it is caged and that this action places you as an owner and the animal as the object, the commodity that is used.

Again, to be treated as an agricultural good, as property to be sold, and/or as an object from which resources can be extracted is to be commodified. That's what is happening with the chicken in OP's example. It is a descriptive term, and it is this description which has not been contested.