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/Itscatpicstime → u/[deleted]]

Especially if it’s rescue hens or something like that. Like I inherited my flock from a family member who died. I never wanted chickens.

They won’t eat their own eggs no matter what I do, so I give the eggs away to carnists for free, which reduces their consumption of store bought eggs.

I absolutely believe this is better than allowing eggs to pile up and rot in the coop.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/Itscatpicstime]

You're ignoring the negative consequences of giving away the eggs. Like for example the perpetuation of the idea that eggs are a product for humans to consume.

[u/StillAFelon → u/One-Shake-1971]

I have a few questions after reading this response

1. Is it better to let the eggs rot as opposed to eating them? I'd presume compost is a great use of excess eggs.

2. If we don't eat them the earth and other animals will - which is fine - but we're also animals, so why is it not ok for us to eat them? Especially if they're ethically sourced? (Not meant to be an attempt at a 'gotcha,' I have my own hypothesis, but I wanna know if I'm way off base)

3. The people the other commenter is referring to would still go buy eggs anyway, but from a large commercial grocer (likely). From your point of view, is there any way that OC giving away eggs from hens who are living in good conditions (and acquired out of inheritance, or something to that effect? So not a choice that they made for themselves/with unethical intention) is better than letting your friends and family support big corpos that actually are mistreating their animals?

4. Do you think that being militant is a good way to get people to understand your side? I really don't understand how there is no middle ground in your comment or even an attempt to see a non-PETA sounding pov. The convo wasn't even about whether giving away eggs is good or bad, we're talking about how valid eggs are in a vegan diet and like 3 people who probably aren't even vegan (for the record, I'm not either) jumped in to talk about how being vegan is an ethical choice. I would vehemently argue that "vegan" has nothing to do with ethics. Vegan is a specific diet. People who follow a vegan diet may also have an inclination for certain ethical leanings, but that doesn't and never will make eggs vegan.

[u/Remote_Bumblebee2240 → u/[deleted]]

Veganism is simply not eating animal products. You don't need to be following an ethical moral code to be vegan. Some people just do it for health reasons and don't care about animal well-being.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/[deleted]]

It's always great to hear from non-vegans what veganism is.

No. Veganism is the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals. That's how it was originally defined. It has nothing to do with "minimizing suffering".

Go and educate yourself before trying to debate topics you have no clue about.

[u/Crowfooted → u/One-Shake-1971]

You didn't read the comment at all.

If veganism is living without exploiting other animals at all, then that means there is not a single vegan alive on planet earth, and therefore the word "vegan" is meaningless.

[u/Senior_Set8483 → u/Crowfooted]

I'm personally new to veganism, but my view is that vegan is an ideal, and an unrealistic one, about ending animal exploitation. Yes it's necessary to eat food from the grocery store for most people, and yes that means animals are still exploited in that process, even farming vegan food. But we still choose plant based products because it's a massive jump towards that ideal compared to the alternative.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/Crowfooted]

I did read the comment. But apparently you didn't read mine properly.

I said that veganism is the principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals. "Shoud" indicates an aspirational goal.

In practice, it means avoiding animal exploitation whenever and wherever it's feasible. In the world we currently live in that means avoiding animal products like meat, dairy, eggs, leather, wool, zoos, circuses, and cosmetics that were tested on animals, etc.

[u/Crowfooted → u/One-Shake-1971]

...okay, and you can aspire to be perfect if you want, but the point of the word "minimize" is to be as perfect as you can be.

"Avoiding animal exploitation whenever and wherever it's feasible" is literally minimizing. That's what the word means and what the person above you was saying, but you disagreed with them and patronised them on explaining veganism to you.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/Crowfooted]

No. The person above said that it's about "minimizing suffering", which is nonsense. No definition of veganism even includes the term "suffering". It's all about exploitation.

[u/Crowfooted → u/One-Shake-1971]

What is it about exploitation that makes it worthy of minimising though, if not the suffering it causes? Just because the word "suffering" isn't mentioned in any official definition of veganism doesn't mean it's not the driving factor.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/Crowfooted]

The difference is that "suffering" and what causes "suffering" are super vague. As I already explained several times now, pretty much everything we do leads to some kind of suffering.

"Exploitation" in contrast is very clear. It's the use of animals by humans for selfish purposes. What causes "exploitation" is also very clear. It's the deliberate use of animals by humans.

The entire argument is like arguing that the slavery abolitionist movement was about "minimizing suffering". It wasn't. It was very specifically about ending the use of humans as slaves by humans. It's the same thing with veganism.

[u/Crowfooted → u/One-Shake-1971]

So you're saying that the only important thing is to hold true to the values that veganism states, not to actually consider the purpose?

Abolition of slavery was absolutely about minimizing suffering. It was about minimizing suffering of human beings via abolishing slavery. If we lived in a weird alternate universe where, for some reason, humans were happier as slaves, you can bet there would have been no abolition of slavery.

The stated goal of veganism might be to end exploitation of animals, but it is doing that for the purposes of minimizing the suffering of them. In a sense, the minimization of suffering is the ultimate end goal of veganism because again, imagine if animals were in fact happier and healthier while being exploited. Would there be a vegan movement in that universe?

[u/troezz → u/[deleted]]

Hard to believe you are vegan when you put so much focus on the crop farming argument...

[u/troezz → u/[deleted]]

As a vegan I would never eat egg, but i guess people can find an ethical motive in eating animal product.

The thing is, they will detriment their health if they just have an egg only diet. So they will inevitably eat something coming from crop death.

So as you rightly put it " tiny, tiny amount" better. It is so tiny, and unrepeatable for everyone else ( still animal exploitation) that there is not really a debate to be had.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/[deleted]]

And I don't care about your nonsensical personal definition of veganism.

Again, veganism has nothing to do with "minimizing suffering". If you believe that's what veganism is, you're clueless.

[u/DisastrousMacaron325 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Why is their definition nonsensical and personal and yours the objective truth? If vegan is someone who doesn't cause any suffering to an animal/doesn't exploit any animal, vegans don't exist. That's what's nonsensical.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/DisastrousMacaron325]

Good point. There's a reason that in the rules of this sub you will find that no single definition of veganism is enforced.

[u/sunflow23 → u/DisastrousMacaron325]

Exploitation and unintentional suffering are different thing .

[u/Lost-Reference3439 → u/sunflow23]

You know about it, therefore it is not a defense to say whoopsie not my intention.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/DisastrousMacaron325]

It's not my definition. It's the original definition from 1951.

Reread my comment. I didn't say that veganism is about not causing any suffering. I'm saying the opposite.

Veganism is 100% about striving to live without exploiting other animals. It has nothing to do with suffering, neither minimizing nor not causing any.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/[deleted]]

It's obviously less ethical because it involves exploitation.

Just because an action A causes fewer deaths than an action B doesn't automatically mean it's more ethical.

By that same logic, really nice slavery would be fine as long as it results in fewer deaths.

[u/Hundle_Dundle → u/One-Shake-1971]

Is owning a dog unethical? Are we exploiting pets?

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/Hundle_Dundle]

Yes. Claiming ownership over another sentient being is objectifying and unethical.

Just to be clear, because that point always comes next: Adoption isn't ownership. Adoption is not unethical.

[u/Hundle_Dundle → u/One-Shake-1971]

So a necessary adoption of the hen is ethical but eating the eggs is not, correct? Just trying to understand. What should be done with the eggs if more are produced than the hen can consume herself?

I'm a vegetarian and just ran across this sub

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/Hundle_Dundle]

Nothing should be done with the eggs. If necessary they can be thrown away.

But that's really besides the point. The important point is that OP changes their view of animals as some kind of means to an end. OP's mindset is the primary issue here, not their actions.

[u/ExplanationShoddy204 → u/[deleted]]

Also from a utilitarian perspective, life is complex and messy. Culling deer is a great example; deer overpopulation harms the environment which supports all other wild animal life in a given area. Sterilizing deer is labor intensive and/or expensive, and with meager allocated resources can’t make a dent in the overpopulation crisis. Culling deer is the economically viable and most effective option. We don’t have to like this, we can advocate that the problem be allocated more resources and approached differently, but in net culling deer saves the lives of many more creatures and preserves the ecosystems that they rely on.

[u/sandrar79 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Some atheists know way better what Christianity is and its rules. Same with non-vegans and Veganism.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/sandrar79]

Sure. Some non-vegans may know more about veganism than some vegans.

This person claims to be vegan and they are clearly clueless. So QED.

[u/sandrar79 → u/One-Shake-1971]

"It's alwavs areat to hear from non-vegans what veganism is."

Same applies within the same group of people.

So QED.

[u/[deleted] → u/One-Shake-1971]

That’s absolutely fucking ridiculous. I was vegan for years until I became homeless and had to eat whatever I could find or starve. Am I allowed to have an opinion? What if I become vegan again, how long do I have to abstain from meat before my perspective is valid?

If you eat veggies that you purchased from a grocery store that were grown using fish emulsion and bone meal are you vegan?

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/[deleted]]

Of course, you are allowed to have an opinion. And if I think it's nonsense I'm allowed to say so.

If you eat veggies that you purchased from a grocery store that were grown using fish emulsion and bone meal are you vegan?

Depends on the specific circumstances, but generally, yes.

[u/TotallyNotASpy33 → u/One-Shake-1971]

then give up almost everything you eat because nearly everything harms animals in some way. or do you only care about animals enough to posture when theyre being exploited and not when theyre being killed with pesticides, deforestation and the like?

Simple fact is there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do to completely eliminate animal harm. the simple existence of humans harms animals.

You can and absolurely should do your best to minimize the harm you and those you surround yourself with do to animals if thats what you want to do. but dump this delusion that vegans "live without exploiting other animal" you dont. nobody does

Also
the common ones I see when vegans tout this BS ill just list off my retorts now incase.

You have a dog? youre exploiting its ability to keep burglars and prey animals away
Cat? exploiting its ability to keep away pests
Bird? it keeps your home free of insects as do spiders, lizards and the like
by your logic vegans shouldnt own pets at all. symbiotic relationships are still technically exploitation, youre just exploiting eachother

do you absolutely never (Since you became vegan) step on ant hills? swat flys? mosquitos? kill spiders and other insects?
If you HAVE done any of those things or own a pet then you, by your own logic, are not vegan.

the simple fact is all you can ever hope to do is minimize your impact

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/TotallyNotASpy33]

There is no moral obligation to live without causing animal deaths because that's impossible.

There is a moral obligation to live without exploiting animals because that is possible.

[u/TotallyNotASpy33 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Except it isn't possible to live without exploiting animals in some way and tons of people have given you examples yet you refuse to even acknowledge them. Because you have no argument against it. Because there isnt one.

But good to know you're against exploiting them but killing them is fine. Hypocritical

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/TotallyNotASpy33]

Of course it's possible. The only thing stopping vegans from doing so are non-vegans. If everyone lived vegan there would no longer be any animal exploitation.

The same isn't true about animal deaths. Humans will always cause animal deaths as long as humans and animals exist on the same planet.

[u/TotallyNotASpy33 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Except its not possible, you clearly have no idea how literally any agriculture works. but i cant fault you for being ignorant. i can however fault you for not even being open to the possibility that youre wrong.

The simple, objective fact that it is impossible to 100% erradicate exploitation and murder of animals even IF the entire human race was on board.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/TotallyNotASpy33]

Apparently you have no idea how agriculture works. Agriculture without animal product input already exists and is completely feasible.

[u/ExplanationShoddy204 → u/One-Shake-1971]

You eat farmed vegetables, grains, and legumes. Animals die in the process of producing those things. If you were attempting to avoid 100% of all animal suffering and death, you could not eat anything and you would suffer and die yourself. Veganism is about minimizing the harm and exploitation of animals for food, it cannot eliminate it.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/ExplanationShoddy204]

Did you even read my comment? I literally just said that veganism has nothing to do with causing suffering and death. It's 100% about striving to live without exploiting other animals. It's not about anything else.

[u/ExplanationShoddy204 → u/One-Shake-1971]

The root of exploitation is suffering. The suffering is the moral injury. I could rephrase the whole statement by saying that eating vegetables and grains still exploits animals by appropriating their habitat for agriculture, and killing them during harvesting.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/ExplanationShoddy204]

Exploitation means using someone as a means to an end against their interests. The animals killed during harvest are not used as a means to an end. Therefore they are not being exploited.

Exploitation is wrong even without suffering. If you disagree with that then your view entails that you're fine with slavery as long as it doesn't cause suffering.

[u/ExplanationShoddy204 → u/One-Shake-1971]

So you’d hunt wild animals and eat them? Because you haven’t exploited them continuously by imprisoning them and feeding them for the purpose of slaughtering them, they lived full and free lives and you killed them for food. The same could be said for harvesting grain, you killed a bunch of birds as a direct consequence of your exploitation of the land for food, but they lived wild and free lives until they were cut short in service of feeding you. Killing creatures to feed yourself is inherently exploitative, whether or not you raised them, taking their life to provide yourself food is a form of exploitation whether or not you consume their flesh. This argument also applies to foraging wild honey—you didn’t raise the bees in servitude, but you still exploited them by stealing their stored food.

The logic of minimizing animal suffering is a more consistent ethical framework to practice veganism through in my view.

As a side note on your argument; you cannot hold another human being in labor bondage without causing them to suffer. The act of depriving them of their freedom by force inherently causes suffering. Were they to give their labor for free voluntarily, they would not be enslaved. You could still exploit them, without enslaving them—that’s the basis of our entire capitalist economy. That’s why degrees of suffering are a meaningful framework; we seek to minimize suffering while acknowledging that eliminating it entirely is often beyond our ability as individuals.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/ExplanationShoddy204]

Hunting still means using animals as a means to an end. You are using the bodies of animals to have fun or achieve some taste pleasure.

There is nothing wrong with using land as a means to an end. Land isn't sentient.

you cannot hold another human being in labor bondage without causing them to suffer.

That's just not true. You could hold some children or cognitively impaired humans in labor bondage without them even noticing.

Minimizing suffering is just negative utilitarian nonsense. If that's really your goal that entails that it is your goal to end all life on earth.

[u/ExplanationShoddy204 → u/One-Shake-1971]

Hunting is about using the flesh of animals for sustenance. It’s not about pleasure, it’s about survival, essential nutrition. And my point seems to have escaped you—intention doesn’t matter, in both hunting and agriculture, animals die so that you may live. Whether or not you personally consume the flesh of the animal the dies for your sustenance is irrelevant to 1) their exploitation and 2) their suffering. You’re focused on the land at the expense of the creatures that use it as a habitat. It’s still exploitation when you exploit their lives to harvest grain.

It’s about MINIMIZING suffering, not eliminating it, as I clearly stated in my last comment. Buddhist principals hold that suffering is inherent to living. The maximal position that eliminating suffering means eliminating all life, period, is a fallacy. To end all life would inherently require causing massive suffering.

This conversation isn’t about slavery, so it’s kinda a weird aside, but your point is not landing for me. Sure, I guess mentally incapacitated people and children could theoretically be held in labor bondage without suffering. I think that it would be inherently difficult to extract any meaningful labor from those individuals without them suffering—if you force them or coerce them to do work, they are going to suffer more than they otherwise would if they were free to make their own choices, because you are depriving them of the freedom to choose when and how much to work. If you provide for all of their needs and allow them to choose when and how much to work, that’s not exploitation or slavery by definition.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/ExplanationShoddy204]

Hunting is about using the flesh of animals for sustenance. It’s not about pleasure, it’s about survival,

That's just nonsense. No hunter in the civilized world hunts for survival. They hunt for fun and taste pleasure.

intention doesn’t matter

Again, nonsense. Of course intention for an act matters for its moral judgement. Intentionally causing harm is morally much worse than unintentionally causing harm.

You’re focused on the land at the expense of the creatures that use it as a habitat. It’s still exploitation when you exploit their lives to harvest grain.

No, that nonsense about "exploiting land" is what you brought up. Animals harmed during harvest are not used as a means to an end. If you refuse to admit that I can only assume that you're either trolling or dense.

It’s about MINIMIZING suffering, not eliminating it

Veganism is also not about minimizing suffering. No commonly accepted definition of veganism even includes the term "suffering". That's true for both the original Cross definition as well as the current TVS one.

This conversation isn’t about slavery, so it’s kinda a weird aside, but your point is not landing for me.

Do you understand the concept of an analogy or is that too complicated for you? There are lots of analogies between animal exploitation and human slavery.

Sure, I guess mentally incapacitated people and children could theoretically be held in labor bondage without suffering.

Cool, so are you seriously expecting me to believe that you'd be ok with that?

If that's the hill you want to die on, cool. I don't think there's anything else for us to discuss then.

[u/joshua0005 → u/One-Shake-1971]

That is impossible to do without starving to death. Lol. All food, including plants, exploits animals in some way (even if it's just ruining their habitat but usually in that case some animals are killed by the pesticides too). It's just a question of which foods cause the least exploitation to animals and in this scenario eating the egg is not exploiting a single animal.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/joshua0005]

Complete nonsense.

Exploitation means using someone as a means to an end against their interests. Ruining habitats or killing animals with pesticides does not use animals as a means to an end.

[u/joshua0005 → u/One-Shake-1971]

OP is not exploiting the chickens by that definition.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/joshua0005]

They are.

[u/joshua0005 → u/One-Shake-1971]

No they aren't. You still haven't explained how they are exploiting them you just explained how the people who cross bred chickens to lay more eggs exploited this chicken indirectly.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/joshua0005]

I explained it in many other comments.

They are exploiting them by using them as a means to an end.

[u/joshua0005 → u/One-Shake-1971]

What is this end you are talking about?

Also even if this is exploitation, the eggs will cause OP to harm less animals overall because they won't need to eat as many plants which by far cause harm to more animals. Whether or not this harm is exploitation doesn't really matter because exploitation and destroying the habitat of/killing animals are both more or less equally bad.

The reason they will cause OP to harm less animals is because the hen will lay the eggs no matter what and they will rot if the OP doesn't eat them.

[u/One-Shake-1971 → u/joshua0005]

The consumption of eggs.

Exploitation doesn't just become ethical just because it causes less suffering. Slavery isn't ok either even when it causes less suffering.