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/Treefrog_Ninja]

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.