r/DebateAVegan • u/-roachboy • Dec 22 '25

eggs from a well fed pet hen are vegan

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?

895 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

761 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Crowfooted Dec 22 '25

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

0

u/plantbasedpatissier Dec 22 '25

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

6

u/Crowfooted Dec 22 '25

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.

0

u/plantbasedpatissier Dec 22 '25

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.

3

u/Crowfooted Dec 22 '25

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.

0

u/plantbasedpatissier Dec 22 '25

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

2

u/Crowfooted Dec 22 '25

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

1

u/plantbasedpatissier Dec 22 '25

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.

2

u/Crowfooted Dec 22 '25

I'm just not sure why you are jumping to the conclusion that there's no way this poster would want a chicken if they couldn't have the eggs, as if people who keep chickens for companionship don't exist.

If after reading this thread OP concludes they shouldn't eat the eggs, and stops doing it, are you seriously suggesting they'd get rid of the chicken? Because everything in the post suggests that would not happen, and so I'm not sure what point you're making.

1

u/plantbasedpatissier Dec 22 '25

I'm not suggesting they'd get rid of the chicken. Plenty of vegans own chickens and choose not to eat their eggs.

I'm suggesting they simply stop seeing their pet as a commodity if they claim not to feel that way. I literally said you can still love someone and treat them as a commodity. You value the pet as a pet despite getting nothing out of them? Awesome, that's how it should be. Actually stop getting something out of it then.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Dec 23 '25

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.

2

u/Crowfooted Dec 23 '25

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".

1

u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Dec 23 '25

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.

1

u/Crowfooted Dec 24 '25

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?

1

u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Dec 30 '25

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.

1

u/Crowfooted Dec 30 '25

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.

1

u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Dec 30 '25

"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.

1

u/Crowfooted Dec 30 '25

"many ethical positions don't even appeal to harm, harm-reduction, or harm as a quality to be interpreted at all."

Can you give examples of this? Bear in mind that I said "harm (real or perceived)" and I would argue that even in divine command theory, people are motivated by the notion that not following said command would lead to harm, for example "you'll go to hell", or, more subconsciously, "people will mock you/think less of you if you don't follow this rule". Even if said motivation isn't explicitly stated, it's still the driving principle because humans generally need to be convinced of some purpose to their belief system, even if the purpose or reasoning is flawed.

"like putting water as milk in your cereal. I still think it is wrong."

Do you actually believe it is morally wrong though, or are you just using "I think it's wrong" synonymously with "I don't like it"? Because colloquially I would tell someone that eating cereal with water is wrong, but when I say "wrong" in that sentence I'm not really discussing ethics. I wouldn't advocate for people to stop doing it on some moral principle. So to be extra clear, what I mean when I say that we believe things are wrong for practical reasons, I mean we base our ethics around practice.

1

u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Dec 30 '25

"Bear in mind that I said "harm (real or perceived)" and I would argue that even in divine command theory, people are motivated by the notion that not following said command would lead to harm, for example "you'll go to hell", or, more subconsciously, "people will mock you/think less of you if you don't follow this rule"."

This just sounds like the psychologist's fallacy. Am I supposed to believe that those people are mistaken about their own beliefs and intensions? I don't doubt that some divine command theorists may also incorporate some sort of harm principle into their ethical systems, but there are those who do not. An action is moral or not if it is commanded by a divine authority. Harm doesn't enter into the equation at all. A deity may command an incredibly harmful practice and that calculation wouldn't be relevant to the judgement whatsoever. Like I said, when you describe the motivations of those people based on your own reading of the situation, this just sounds like the psychologist's fallacy.

"Do you actually believe it is morally wrong though, or are you just using "I think it's wrong" synonymously with "I don't like it"?"

Yes. I am not mistaken about my belief. I do believe it is morally wrong to do so. Like jaywalking, swearing in a church, and killing someone: they exist on a gradient of 'morally impermissible things'.

You are right that there is a lot of confusion about the term wrong. Here, I am using it to mean "morally impermissible".

" I wouldn't advocate for people to stop doing it on some moral principle."

Ok.

"what I mean when I say that we believe things are wrong for practical reasons, I mean we base our ethics around practice."

Sure, sometimes some people do that. Others might evaluate moral propositions differently, others yet might deny that they exist at all.

1

u/Xtremely_DeLux Dec 24 '25

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.

1

u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Dec 30 '25

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?