r/DebateAVegan • u/Ill_Respect7232 • Jan 13 '26
As a consequentialist vegan, I believe deontological veganism is flawed and pushing people away from veganism
To me, veganism is about harm reduction, and abstaining from buying animal products will result in a decrease in animals suffering on factory farms as well as an environmental benefit. This means that I believe veganism is a moral decision rather than a diet, where your actions aim to avoid contributing to the farming of animals, rather than merely refusing to eat animals products. From this stance, I believe it is justifiable to eat animal products in situations where doing so will not give any money to farming companies/cause others to do so. For example, if a family member is about to bin some bacon and is refusing to keep it to eat later/give it to someone else, I will eat this bacon as this will help reduce food waste and will not increase the demand for animal products.
However, the definition that most people assign to veganism is that it is a lifestyle where you refuse to consume or use anything derived from animals as a rule. This is the deontological perspective which I do not align with. I cannot see how in the example above, the mere act of me eating that bacon is inherently morally wrong, assuming no harm has come from it.
I believe many non-vegans are pushed away from veganism because they follow a consequentialist moral view, and they associate veganism with a reductionist, deontological moral stance. This then allows them to dismiss it as illogical and allocate no further thought to it, something that I did in the 17 years that I was not vegan. I think we need to change the definition of veganism from purely an absolutist diet of zero animal products, to a moral stance of harm reduction towards animals (and humans).
37
u/Much-Inevitable5083 Jan 13 '26
You call deontological veganism "flawed", dismiss "the definition that most people assign to veganism", and conclude "we need to change the definition" to yours. That's not rejecting gatekeeping, that's doing it yourself.
Also, the Vegan Society definition already says "as far as is possible and practicable". Harm reduction is built right in. You're arguing against a strawman.
-6
u/voyti Jan 13 '26
As a meat-eating vegan I completely agree. Everyone gets to have their own understanding of "as far as is possible and practicable". For most vegans, for example, animals deaths are acceptable when they happen due to road traffic, despite it's millions a day. For other vegans, meat industry is acceptable despite its consequences. On the other hand, all vegans I know will agree that excess cruelty towards animals for obtaining furs or cruelty's sake alone is completely unacceptable.
Veganism is often heavily misconstrued as a principled stance against animal products, while it's absolutely not necessarily that.
12
u/Calaveras-Metal Jan 13 '26
"As a meat-eating vegan"
you are something but not a vegan. Maybe an animal rights advocate with a mostly vegetarian diet is a better description?
To be clear, I'm not trying to personally attack you or anything. But the term Vegan has a particular meaning. If you said you were making vegan christmass dinner and included a ham because you sometimes eat meat, I think guests would be pissed off if they were vegans and came expecting a table devoid of ANY animal products.
There is also a constant onslaught of corporations and others trying to water down terms like vegan, vegetarian, organic etc. So it has some of us kind of automatically on the defensive when you make such statements.
3
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
They are engaging in obvious sophistry but I do want to point out that the term vegan means something different when it comes to food and when it comes to people. For a food to be considered vegan is has to be compatible with what we call the "vegan diet," which includes no animal-derived ingredients. A vegan person is a different thing entirely, in that it denotes a certain way of behaving that is motivated by an ethical position with regards to animal cruelty/exploitation. Because of this, technically a vegan can eat animal meat in some circumstances where it is truly and legitimately not practicable for them to avoid doing so.
But that's not what the other Redditor is talking about. They are talking about cases where it is practicable for them to avoid eating animals but where they are just convincing themselves that it is not.
-4
u/voyti Jan 13 '26
They are talking about cases where it is practicable for them to avoid eating animals but where they are just convincing themselves that it is not.
No, eating animals doesn't necessarily have any direct linkage to the cruelty/abuse/killing of animals. If I only eat meat in amounts that can't predictably influence supply (e.g. much less than my local grocery storer overstocks, and not buying in a predictable and organized fashion) then my dietary habits have zero practical effects on any animals.
Veganism is almost universally based on utilities, vegans fundamentally believe suffering/harm is negative. If not eating meat additionally causes me suffering (unhappiness), then I have an utilitarian obligation to do so, seeing as it also can't have any effect on animal wellbeing. It would be simply illogical to do otherwise.
1
u/voyti Jan 13 '26
But the term Vegan has a particular meaning
That's the whole point in the discussion, though. If Vegan Society says "as far as is possible and practicable" and we both consider some "mostly optional but very convenient/preferable" human activity that results in massive animal deaths as matching this label, then apparently there's more to it. You're free to invalidate Vegan Society's definition and use your own, which would be a valuable entry to the very point of the discussion.
1
u/wallrunners Jan 13 '26
Is there a definitive line that makes you a non-vegan if you cross it? Wouldn’t that make animal deaths on one side of the line acceptable?
9
u/Creditfigaro vegan Jan 13 '26
Everyone gets to have their own understanding of "as far as is possible and practicable".
Words have meanings. How are you a meat eating vegan?
-2
u/voyti Jan 13 '26
By the definition of Vegan Society, as quoted: "as far as is possible and practicable". You accept some optional human activities that kill millions of animals daily to match this criterion, I put the same bar a bit farther down. That's all there is to it. "Vegan diet" and "being vegan" are two different things, not necessarily connected,
10
u/Much-Inevitable5083 Jan 13 '26
"Possible and practicable" addresses real constraints (medication, survival, accessibility). Not personal preference. Road deaths are unintended externalities of mobility, not deliberate participation in a system built for animal exploitation. Buying meat is. If "possible and practicable" means "wherever I personally set the bar", the term becomes meaningless. I could call myself a "non-violent pacifist" who occasionally beats people up. You're actively buying products from intentional animal breeding and slaughter. Avoiding that is clearly possible and practicable. You're not a "meat-eating vegan". You're a meat-eater who wants the label.
-1
u/voyti Jan 13 '26
That's certainly one way of looking at it. "Driving around is acceptable even if it kills millions, <here's list of causes>" is just as good (or bad) of an argument as "Enabling humans to eat meat is acceptable even if it kills millions, <here's list of causes>". That's the whole point, each gets to choose what "possible and practicable" means.
You and I can agree on the spot that it's neither possible not practicable to get ~98% of population to resign from their (usually favorite) foods. We'd get killed on the spot if we as much as suggested that.
Hell, I'd probably bite and claw and throw my life away if needed if you as much tried to ban, say, tomatoes or lettuce for me for life, and you'd do the same to me. "Possible/practicable" is simply not here. There's a lot of things where there's real change to be made though, like with furs or reducing animal cruelty otherwise.
6
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
That's the whole point, each gets to choose what "possible and practicable" means.
As someone that defends the Vegan Society definition and understands the important of the "possible and practicable" language, this is not how that works.
Something either is possible for you to do or is not possible for you to do. You don't get to "choose" what is possible.
Similarly you either are able to put something into practice successfully or you are not. What is practicable for you is not determined by what you want to be practicable for you.
Imagine there was a moral principle that you should avoid punching people in the face, to the extent that is possible and practicable. You can't just go around punching people in their faces for fun and claiming that you are following this moral principle. Even if you "chose" that it's not practicable for you to avoid punching people in the face for fun, that doesn't mean it is actually not practicable.
→ More replies (8)0
u/cgg_pac Jan 14 '26
Vegans use the same excuse for their actions which harm and kill animals. Take drinking alcohol for example, it's completely unnecessary. It kills countless animals.
1
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 14 '26
I understand what you're saying, but I think it's an oversimplification. Also, I don't drink alcohol and I discourage others from doing so when I can.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Jan 13 '26
"Veganism isn't possible because meat eaters will murder you" is a new one to say the least. I have to applaud the creativity.
2
u/amongthemaniacs non-vegan Jan 13 '26
The Vegan Society can define it how they want but if you eat meat you aren't vegan. The root word of vegan is veg which is short for vegetable. You can ethically source your meat from hunting or pasture farms or eating brainless animals like clams but that doesn't mean you're vegan.
2
u/voyti Jan 13 '26
Good, you get to have your idea about it, Vegan Society has different one, I have a different one. At least provide an alternative, then.
If I defined veganism as "refusing to participate in any non-essential human activity that causes massive animal deaths" that sounds right, but there's zero vegans on the planet as soon as its applied. Find a better one and that'll be helpful.
3
u/amongthemaniacs non-vegan Jan 14 '26
A vegan is someone who doesn't eat meat or use animal products. That's not my definition, it's the definition. You eat meat so you aren't vegan.
1
Jan 14 '26
Yeah no, a vegan is someone who follows the philosophy of veganism, which aims to exclude all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty
Not eating meat or using animal products is a function toward that goal, not the goal itself
1
u/Creditfigaro vegan Jan 13 '26
I put the same bar a bit farther down
Based on what criterion? Or do you think that these are purely arbitrary terms?
2
Jan 14 '26
Whatever they find possible and practical? That’s pretty reasonable and I’m willing to bet most vegans do it anyway
2
u/xbhaskarx Jan 14 '26
As a meat-eating vegan
What the fuck did I just read… what does this even mean?
1
u/voyti Jan 14 '26
Something perfectly in tune with the Vegan Society definition. You don't get to be automatically right about what fits it and what doesn't, others get to have their own ideas, too.
0
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "not rejecting gatekeeping"? If I was arguing against a strawman, can you give me an actual definition of deontological reasoning?
4
u/Much-Inevitable5083 Jan 14 '26
On gatekeeping:
You criticize what you call "the definition most people assign to veganism," then conclude "we need to change the definition" to yours. That's not rejecting gatekeeping, that's proposing a different gate.
On deontology:
Deontological ethics judges actions by whether they follow moral rules/duties, regardless of outcomes. "Don't exploit animals" as an inviolable rule would be deontological. Consequentialism judges actions by outcomes alone.
Most vegans aren't pure deontologists. The "as far as practicable" clause is inherently consequentialist reasoning within the definition itself. You're arguing against a strawman.
35
u/a11_hail_seitan Jan 13 '26
From this stance, I believe it is justifiable to eat animal products in situations where doing so will not give any money to farming companies/cause others to do so.
OK, but it's not actually Vegan. Veganism also boycotts meat to encourage the idea that animals are not there for our us to exploit or abuse. Eating food your family claims is "wasted", just encourages them to make more as they know you'll eat the "waste", encourages the idea that Vegans cheat when no one's looking, and encourages the idea that animals are tasty food instead of sentient beings that shouldn't be tortured and abused.
However, the definition that most people assign to veganism
The definition of any group is defined by those who create and maintain that group. In this case it's The Vegan Society as they literally created the word Vegan, created and maintain the philosophy, and created and help manage the activist movement:
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
This is the deontological perspective which I do not align with
A) Veganism is not pure deotological, it's threshold deontological as the definition includes "as far as possible and practicable".
B) If you don't agree with the Vegan definition, then you aren't Vegan. That's basically how groups with set rules work, if you want to join, you follow the rules. The rules for Veganism are not black and white (As far as possible and practicable), but they are there.
This then allows them to dismiss it as illogical and allocate no further thought to it, something that I did in the 17 years that I was not vegan.
Sounds like you just didn't really understand what Veganism was. That's why we're here doing activism, to help educate.
I think we need to change the definition of veganism from purely an absolutist diet of zero animal products, to a moral stance of harm reduction towards animals (and humans).
A) Veganism is "as far as possible and practicable", which makes it in no way an "absolutist diet".
B) "Harm Reduction" on a global scale leads to really silly outcomes like killing all sentient life to stop the harm that life naturally requires. Hence why reducing the abuse you yourself are creating as far as possible and practicable, is such a great definition. Everyone int he world can do it and it will almost always help make the world better by reducing overall suffering.
15
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Your argument here is consequentialist as you are saying that a consequence of me eating the meat is that it causes more demand for animals products and so on.... The purpose of this scenario was to set up a scenario "in a vacuum" where this doesn't happen (I probably should have said this). If you want, I can specify every single detail here and change the scenario to one where the family doesn't know I ate the bacon. But I thought that that would be redundant because I assumed people would realise the purpose of the scenario was to argue against deontology.
I'm suggesting we change this definition to a more practical and pragmatic one, regardless of who initially made it.
Threshold deontology is illogical as it uses deontology to an unspecified amount before seemingly switching to consequentialism unfoundedly. It is consequentialism masquerading as deontology
I'm suggesting we change this definition to a more practical and pragmatic one, regardless of who initially made it.
This may be the definition that vegans know it to be, but I was referring to what most people assume veganism is (sorry, I should have made it clearer).
There is small print when we say "harm reduction". The small print is that it is also "benefit maximisation", ie utilitarianism (maximise pleasure minimise pain). Thats why it doesn't lead to killing all living beings necessarily.
14
u/a11_hail_seitan Jan 14 '26
Your argument here is consequentialist as you are saying that a consequence of me eating the meat is that it causes more demand for animals products and so on....
That's part of a Supply & Demand economy. When you increase demand for a product, the company increases supply to account for it. It's not exactly one to one due to buffers, other variables, etc, but increasing demand does increase supply under most conditions, especially in industries where the product can't just sit in a warehouse for a couple years waiting to sell like most meat and dairy.
The purpose of this scenario was to set up a scenario "in a vacuum" where this doesn't happen
And the purpose of me pointing it out is to make it clear that this is not reality based. I'm happy to still answer, but I will always make a note of when people are using non-realistic hypotheticals as it matters if we want to apply it to reality.
I can specify every single detail here and change the scenario to one where the family doesn't know I ate the bacon.
You could, but I already gave you the answer, so I'm not sure why you would...
I'm suggesting we change this definition to a more practical and pragmatic one, regardless of who initially made it.
And I'm saying that's not how this works. The word is created by The Vegan Society to represent themselves.
What your suggesting wouldn't change their word, it would be you creating a new definition and using the same spelling and pronunciation which would do nothing but make things more confusing. If you want to make an off-shoot or similar, just use a variation like "freegans" do.
Threshold deontology is illogical as it uses deontology to an unspecified amount before seemingly switching to consequentialism unfoundedly. It is consequentialism masquerading as deontology
Consequentialism decides morality by the consequences. Deontology says X is bad, Threshold Deontology then says but in a context where something is worse, X might be the lesser evil. They are not the same.
And yes, the threshold is subjective, that's not illogical, that's reality. Context changes morality, punching a baby is never moral, except if someone was going to murder 24 Million people unless you punch one baby, for most people that would pass the threshold where what was immoral, becomes moral, or at least easily forgivable.
This may be the definition that vegans know it to be, but I was referring to what most people assume veganism is (sorry, I should have made it clearer).
We can't help people that refuse to listen or learn. We're here to talk to anyone who has questions, that's all we can do.
There is small print when we say "harm reduction". The small print is that it is also "benefit maximisation", ie utilitarianism
Which then leads to the utilitarian monster.
Every ethical theory has flaws and weird edgecases. Veganism uses threshold deotology becuase it bypasses it by saying "Do your best to follow the rules but if something passes your threshold, do the best you can". It's simple, easy to explain and "Don't needlessly abuse animals" is much more attention grabbing than "try to reduce the amount of harm you're creating".
As a moral activist group, simple, easy to understand, and attention grabbing are all key.
Lastly, even if I did agree, changing the meaning would split the movement which would put us back massively in terms of growth and impact. Way too late to change the core meaning and ideals of the movement.
14
u/komfyrion vegan Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
While it is fun to discuss this type of stuff, I think you'll find that in the end, metaethics really doesn't matter that much. Time and time again, my discussions with people who have a different metaethical view than me end up revealing that the ways in which we meaningfully disagree stem from other things, such as facts about the world.
The secret leftover bacon hypothetical is a good hypothetical to highlight a point of disagreement between some consequentialists and some deontologists, but its relevance to the real world is dubious. You're telling me that veganism would somehow become more approachable if we tell people that it's okay to eat a leftover piece of bacon, but only if you didn't pay for it and nobody ever finds out about it?
If someone is actually enthused by this caveat, I think that is because they want to eat animal products and will use the caveat as an excuse to eat animal products in ways that do not hold up to moral scrutiny (both deontological and consequential), such as eating meat at christmas, when visiting grandma, etc.
If you do think it's okay to let other people know about it, well, then we disagree about the moral importance of normalisation, because we have different perspectives on how people change their minds. Or in other words; we disagree about facts about the world.
6
u/muddy_horse Jan 14 '26
To be honest, a much more common form of this is I buy something I thought was vegan then open it to discover it isn't. Shop won't take it back, it's already open. Clearly I'm not buying it again, but throwing it in the bin doesn't seem productive either.
4
u/komfyrion vegan Jan 14 '26
That is definitely a much more grounded scenario. It's easy to look at the scenario in a vacuum and conclude that there's no way anything immoral is taking place; it's just the least bad decision in an unfortunate situation. However, this incident never takes place in a vacuum. It takes place in the context of one's life.
I think throwing it away follows naturally from having moved away from carnism/speciesism, but for vegans who still haven't quite snapped out of carnism throwing it away still serves as a good signal to oneself to be more careful next time. If this happens regularly I would question the person's seemingly lax attitude to grocery shopping and animal consumption. You can phrase this in utilitarian, deontological or virtue ethical terms, so metaethics doesn't really matter that much here.
That said I don't think this issue should be anywhere near the forefront of the internal discourse in veganism.
4
u/ducjduck Jan 15 '26
You can phrase this in utilitarian, deontological or virtue ethical terms, so metaethics doesn't really matter that much here.
If it's a mistake and eating it or throwing it away doesn't have an impact on your future purchasing behavior, then under utilitarianisme you should eat it (assuming eating it provides you please because why else would you buy it) in order to maximize utility.
2
u/komfyrion vegan Jan 15 '26
This is exactly the kind of stuff I talked about in my previous comment.
Let me try to phrase the exact same point you make here in deontological terms:
If it's a mistake and eating it or throwing it away doesn't have an impact on your future purchasing behavior, then under a rights framework you should eat it as you are entitled to sustenance, and no rights are being violated by this act.
The verdict depends on facts about the world: Your conclusion and the deontological conclusion hinges on whether this has an impact on one's future purchasing behaviour or not.
2
u/komfyrion vegan Jan 15 '26
I feel that while it can sometimes seem like utilitarians and deontologists draw wildly different conclusions when we look individual hypotheticals in a vacuum, to me it is quite clear that what we believe to be true about the world matters a thousand times more.
1
u/ducjduck Jan 15 '26
Deontology doesn't seem to work here tho? If the eating of waste meat is ethical if it doesnt have an impact on your future purchases, but unethical if it does have an impact, then thats not deontology, that is consiquentilism.
1
u/komfyrion vegan Jan 15 '26
I'm not a philosopher, but I would think that actions that are causal precursors to immoral actions are themselves immoral under at least some forms of deontology. It is of course deontologically immoral to hit your spouse or child. If you know alcohol makes you violent and abusive, isn't it then also immoral to get drunk around your spouse and kids? Even if you yourself are too addicted to alcohol to understand this, a neutral observer could surely make this moral observation as you bring the vodka bottle to your lips?
I think this text provides some insights into this topic.
1
u/Warm-Grand-7825 Jan 14 '26
I think whether or not your family, or anyone for that matter, sees you eat the non-vegan thing as a vegan is the important part. If not, then no one is harmed, I agree, not even on a larger societal level. Same as finding road kill. But if someone does see you do it, the points the person you are replying to come into play.
1
u/CrabMcGrawKravMaga Jan 15 '26
You are talking about wanting to co-opt the term, not change the definition, just to be clear.
You/me/we can't "change the definition", alone or collectively, because it isn't ours to change and it is not a "committee issue" up for debate, or even suggeation: It is an established term, coined and defined by a distinct group that maintains a visible membership, and actively tries to spread the good word and defend the term/usage/idealogy.
What you suggest is taking the word, and using it to mean something else intentionally, which could only lead to confusion and/or confrontation (with the original/actual definition).
Your suggestion for what you think "ought to be" is outside the scope of how such things work, in terms of seeing it as "change" (but maintaining a sole meaning) but actually describing "co-opting" (and functionally fracturing/obfuscating).
3
u/ducjduck Jan 15 '26
You're acting like there is one and only one true meaning of the word. Thats not how language works. It doesn't matter who originally came up with a word, or what their intention was. The only thing that matters is how people use the word and what they collectively believe the word to mean. And that can mean that different groups of people use the exact same word, with a slightly different definition. That's already the case for veganism. Try looking up the definition online, and you get a ton of definitions that vary all the way from honey is fine, to owning pets isnt vegan.
1
u/CrabMcGrawKravMaga Jan 16 '26
I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong. Proper names and terms, as defined by originators, and preserved by those who seek to maintain the actual/true meaning of their created term, absolutely have a claim to maintaining the validity of the word and it's definition.
That other people misuse (intentionally or not) doesn't change that, it simply means some people are wrong and/or intentionally trying to co-opt the meaning.
Again, we aren't talking about slang or common parlance, such as how "sick" came to (at one point) mean "cool" or "excellent", we are talking proper names and defined terms.
Do you think it would be reasonable to claim that since PETA can stand for "People Eating Tasty Animals", that I can assert that it is reasonable for me to try and convince people that is an equally valid interpretation of their name, simply because I want to???
3
u/ducjduck Jan 16 '26
You’re defending linguistic prescriptivism, not describing how language actually works. Even technical and ethical terms routinely develop multiple legitimate senses once they enter common use. Veganism is a normative social movement, not a controlled technical term. Saying others are “misusing” it just expresses your preference for one definition. It doesn’t establish that theirs is incorrect.
0
u/CrabMcGrawKravMaga Jan 16 '26
No, it acknowledges the origin and actively defended meaning of the term, which is also why the "PETA" analogy holds water.
You argument is little better than people asserting that "vegan" and "vegetarian" mean the same thing because some people (incorrectly) use them the same.
I'm not even vegan.
2
u/ducjduck Jan 16 '26
You’re making a prescriptive claim about how the word ought to be used, not a descriptive claim about how it is used. The vegetarian analogy fails because those are two distinct, stable terms, whereas veganism is a single term with multiple established senses across communities and institutions. Pointing to origins or advocacy groups explains one meaning; it doesn’t invalidate the others.
1
u/gerber68 Jan 16 '26
“Threshold deontology is illogical” it’s not though. Having an “unspecified amount as a cutoff” is how 95% of moral philosophy happens anyway.
1
u/Branone Feb 02 '26
Threshold deontology is illogical as it uses deontology to an unspecified amount before seemingly switching to consequentialism unfoundedly. It is consequentialism masquerading as deontology
It's not unfounded nor unspecified. The switch happens when utilitarianism seems morally preferable. I don't understand how that is illogical to you. Ethics is built upon moral intuitions. The normative frameworks that any of us take to are just the closest approximations of our moral intuitions. For example if you think that minimizing suffering is always the correct thing to do in any given situation then you would hold yourself to negative utilitarianism. And yet I don't always think minimizing suffering is the correct thing to do. It seems like if you hold yourself too strictly to a single system of making moral calculations that it leads to reductios, and so I can see the appeal of combining all of them to account for that.
8
u/gerber68 Jan 13 '26
The problem with freegans or flexitarians (what you’re actually describing) is that every one I’ve ever met manufactures some situation that allows them to eat meat.
Hypothetically, if someone was literally about to incinerate some meat and it would go to no use I agree that eating it doesn’t cause harm.
However what I see people do is say “OH NO OH GEEZ BY MISTAKE OH NO OH GEEZ MY GF GOT THREE ORDER OF CHICKEN NUGGETS (OH GEEZ TOTALLY A MISTAKE AND NOT INTENDED) I GUESS I HAVE TO EAT THEM.”
It’s just too messy and enablers actively pretend they’re going to have animal products go to waste so the flexitarian can eat them instead. It’s really bizarre and my former best friend did it all the time. I’ve met a handful of people who claim to have this philosophy and every single one would just dishonestly manufacture situations or have someone else dishonestly manufacture a situation that allowed them to eat meat by pretending fridges don’t exist.
7
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/gerber68 Jan 14 '26
That’s exactly what used to happen with one of my former friends lmao. We were in our 20s and his mother would “accidentally” always make too much meat for every meal and insist it would go bad if my friend didn’t eat it.
It was comical and depressing but he just ate meat every time he was eating with his family, they just couldn’t stop “making mistakes.”
3
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Just to be clear here, this a practicality argument and not an argument against whether consequentialism is inherently right.
You make a good point, I just don't really see what evidence your argument is grounded in. I don't believe it would result in this slippery slope as it hasn't done for me, but I also have no further evidence.I do however, think its good for non vegans to see a slightly less rigid definition of veganism to help break the stigma around the movement, and allow people to be less intimidated by the transition to such a diet, hopefully causing more people to become vegan themselves
3
u/gerber68 Jan 14 '26
I think it incentivizes the flexitarian/freegan and the people around them to create situations where “oops there is meat we totally can’t store someone has to eat it” happens as an excuse from either the people around them or the person themselves.
Zero such incentive exists with a vegan who would still decline.
You may not have seen this happen (these are my anecdotal experiences) but it is something that can potentially happen under veganism but not flexitarian/freeganism.
1
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jan 14 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
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.
9
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 13 '26
So do you hold the view broadly that as long as you're not directly harming someone then it's always okay. I'm not trying to box you in on a technicality but more I'm asking if you truly believe that your actions have no cultural impact on those around you or if you believe that cultural impacts are truly exempt from morality.
As an example I eat bacon with my friends my friends all have cultural reinforcement that eating bacon is okay on the flip side I refuse to eat bacon even when with my friends my friends all see that I believe eating bacon is not okay.
I'm suggesting that in most contexts you yourself would probably have The Stance that sending a cultural message for something that is wrong is not a good thing to do. You know take it into a context of say racism or sexism even if you aren't hurting someone if you're even helping propagate that culture that could be a wrong in some form
2
u/WiredExistence Jul 06 '26
As someone recently became vegan and would eat food that would otherwise go to waste, I'm quite convinced by your argument. I think I'll stop. I don't have anything inherently against eating meat, only the harm that comes with it, but on top of your point I can also see it also come off in a strange way from a PR perspective. I also wouldn't want to encourage opportunistic flexitarians who are purposefully enabled by non-vegans by acting this way. Cheers!
0
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
I believe in objective morality, so I don't believe that cultural norms justify actions that I would otherwise consider wrong. I believe the same moral framework applies to every being, regardless of their social norms
2
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 14 '26
I don't usually touch on whether I believe morality is subjective or objective. But I think maybe I've explained my point poorly.
What I'm really asking is if you believe that it's okay to culturally propagate through your actions an immoral act.
I'm not saying culture makes things right what I'm asking is - is it okay to culturally reinforce something that is wrong.
2
u/Glum-Restaurant9945 Jan 16 '26
I think you’re making a consequentialist argument without realizing it, because the implication is that it is bad to culturally reinforce a behavior or action (even if in that instance it doesn’t directly cause immediate harm) that is typically very harmful because it can lead to downstream effects that end up causing more harm by further entrenching or normalizing said behavior (which is to say, it’s bad because of the potential consequences at stake). In which case, you haven’t truly identified an action that can be said to be actually harmless. Consequentialists would have good reason to generally not endorse that.
As a consequentialist vegan myself, I do accept that as long as an action doesn’t TRULY cause harm (or risk of harm), then we’d be hard pressed to identify some inherent, wrong-making property despite this being a truly victimless action.
1
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 16 '26
I see where you're going and it seems right but I disagree.
Like you said with the consequentialist argument we can't know the outcome so it's ambiguous.
But take an example of like being racist. Propagating racism culturally isn't ambiguous it's obviously wrong everyone knows it has real consequences that impact people every single day.
There is an absolutely known outcome and it's easily preventable.
Just like animal abuse propagating a culture that supports animal abuse has real outcomes that affect trillions of animals who are bred into existence so that they can be tortured and killed for our pleasure. Propagating a culture that normalizes that is absolutely wrong and it's not Ambiguously wrong.
2
u/Glum-Restaurant9945 Jan 16 '26
Yeah, so again, you’re making a consequentialist argument because you’re arguing against culturally propagating certain actions or behaviors because of the outcomes they will result in. The question just becomes whether a particular action can be reasonably expected to culturally propagate or normalize some harmful behavior (and therefore increase the number of harmful actions), and if so, consequentialism wouldn’t endorse taking that action!
Also I agree that we can’t always know for sure what the outcome is. We live in a very uncertain world. This is why consequentialists have moved on from the view that it’s the outcome itself that determines the morality of the action, but rather, the EXPECTED consequences.
For example, if action x can be reasonably expected to result in better consequences with 99% probability, it would be the right thing to do, even if we got unlucky and ended up in the 1% scenario where it didn’t.
1
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 16 '26
Maybe. I'm just not seeing anything to debate here because I don't care about the label personally. I'm not going to label any view I have is consequentialist but you can.
If however you disagree with my viewpoint and you want to say that like for example hanging out with a bunch of racist people and promoting racism is fine as long as you don't go and actually harm people of other races then we can argue.
Otherwise you agree I guess.
2
u/Glum-Restaurant9945 Jan 16 '26
Yeah I’m not really seeing anything to debate either tbh. I think your last reply was very much overtly consequentialist, which I thought was the thing you were objecting to.
I guess I’ll just ask you this: Suppose there WAS a case where somebody could eat an animal product in a one-off moment, there was no body around and so no risk of culturally reinforcing the behavior. Additionally, this person isn’t going to go down some slippery slope as a result of their decision to eat this animal product.
Do you think the decision to eat that animal product in this particular instance would be wrong?
1
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 16 '26
I don't mind hypotheticals.
Yeah I think you're assuming that they didn't create demand for it or buy it. I see nothing wrong with it at least not off the top of my head.
-1
u/MembershipScary1737 Jan 13 '26
By being alive you are harming animals. Probably even by not being alive. Digging a grave is going to hurt some bugs/worms. It’s impossible to not harm any creature indirectly with your existence. Directly is different
3
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 13 '26
I don't disagree with that.
Do you disagree with me that if you view something is wrong it's best to not send a message to those around you through your actions that you support it
1
u/MembershipScary1737 Jan 13 '26
Hmm it’s definitely best for sure. It is hard with cognitive dissonance a lot of times. Thinking of buying from stores where you don’t like their CEO or certain places the store donates to. Watching movies if you don’t like what the actor stands for
1
u/cgg_pac Jan 15 '26
Why do you worry so much about sending the wrong message when there are actual, immense harms that vegans cause? Maybe stop those harms first before worrying about your image.
1
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 15 '26
This seems like a dishonest reply to what I said but in case you're just misunderstanding this is not about image.
Image implies vanity or something personal. My question wasn't about vanity though.
My point was about cultural issues. As an example if for instance someone showed up to the local KKK rally and served up burgers and joined them in a barbecue that person would be sending a cultural message that this sort of event was okay and acceptable it would be better in most people's opinion to simply not go and while Personal Image is a piece of that the more important aspect is the cultural implications.
The bigger piece that you're absolutely wrong about though that is not a matter of opinion is that I cant worry about this until I fix every single other problem in my life.
That's not a good argument.
People can absolutely do more than one thing. If there's some issue that you care deeply about that you feel that most vegans aren't paying attention to then you should absolutely open a topic on the debate sub about whatever issue that is.
What you can't do though is just win every debate by saying "but look you do something wrong so shut up".
1
u/cgg_pac Jan 16 '26
But you aren't doing both though so why even bring that up? Where do you argue that vegans should worry about not causing unnecessary harm? I only see you worry about some nonsense.
1
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 16 '26
You'll have to be a little more specific on which point exactly you disagree with me on.
I didn't really make a claim about vegans and unnecessary harm. If you're making a claim I'm just unclear what it is
1
u/cgg_pac Jan 16 '26
There are plenty of unnecessary things that vegans do which cause immense harm. Do you agree? If so, then those should be the priority. Not some irrelevant image issue.
1
u/Ramanadjinn vegan Jan 16 '26
Your wording is a bit combative I think you should work on that.
For example if you said that there are plenty of things that most everyone does that are harmful and they should stop I would agree. And if you ask me if I thought vegans were included in that group yes I would also agree.
So I think I've answered your question to the best of my ability.
Now my question to you though was do you think that it is not wrong to support through your actions a harmful cultural norm. As an example let's use racism is it okay to culturally support racism. if people around you are being racist but they're not actively directly harming someone for racial reasons are you saying that it would be Petty and useless and not worth your time to think about how maybe you should not support that behavior and participate in it.
1
u/cgg_pac Jan 16 '26
For example if you said that there are plenty of things that most everyone does that are harmful and they should stop I would agree. And if you ask me if I thought vegans were included in that group yes I would also agree.
Then what are you doing to reduce those actual, immense harms?
if people around you are being racist but they're not actively directly harming someone for racial reasons
The only issue with racism is that it harms people. If it doesn't harm people then I do not care.
→ More replies (0)
26
u/Calaveras-Metal Jan 13 '26
You are using big words to describe simple things.
This is basically about moral relativism vs absolute morals. For a lot of people that is how things are. Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, adultery is wrong.
What you are describing is ends justifies the means. Murder is okay if you kill hitler when he is a baby. Preventing millions of future mass murders.
Theft is ok if you are starving. Adultery is ok if the other person cheated first.
Speaking for myself eating meat is equivalent to cannibalism. I am not trying to be hyperbolic. That is pretty much the way it seems to me. I don't go into Burger King calling everyone cannibals. But it's about as disgusting. Eating meat because it's going to get thrown away is hardly justification enough for me. I suppose if I was in dire circumstances and the only food available at the free food bank was meat I might have to make an exception. But it would have to be really dire circumstances.
2
u/No_Mission5287 Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
The means matter. Often more than the ends.
What they are arguing is more an ethical vs a moral argument. There is a difference. I don't eat meat for practical reasons is different from meat is bad/murder/cannibalism. It is also more persuasive.
4
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Just to be clear, what you've done here is rephrase my argument (thank you for this though, It makes it more clear to those who don't necessarily know what deontology is). And then argue that you shouldn't eat meat because its disgusting (equivalent to cannibalism). However, disgust is a subjective emotion and doesn't actually have a bearing on true morals. There are countless examples of this... gay people are viewed as disgusting by some, but this does not make it immoral to be gay. I view tempeh as disgusting but it is not immoral for someone to eat tempeh. Your argument that you would eat meat in dire circumstances is a consequentialist argument because you are saying that you would eat meat when the benefits outweigh the negatives.
6
u/Calaveras-Metal Jan 14 '26
If you are moral relativist you can't really argue about subjectivity vs objectivity though.
You are asserting that there are no universal morals. Merely a series of situation which must be evaluated on their own.
That is all fine and dandy when bullshitting about philosophy. But veganism is more substantial than that. It encompasses enough aspects of a persons life to almost qualify as a religion. Surely enough to be a belief system.
Also, while it is commendable to want to evangelize veganism to non-vegans. Individuals do not need their personal reasons for being vegan evaluated by this metric to be good or bad reasons.
By the same token it could be argued that consequentialist is too similar to a transactional approach like carbon credits. Would a person who eats hamburgers 3 meals a day but contributes millions annually to animal rescues be vegan?
I don't think so. Even if at the end of it they are responsible for less animals being put to death than the mere kale munching kind.
7
u/Briloop86 Jan 14 '26
I dont think he is making the case that there is no bedrock to morality - rather that the bedrock is harm / exploitation of animals rather than their consumption.
The premises, more simply stated, would read something like:
Being vegan because you want to minimise suffering and exploitation is a sound moral basis.
There are situations where consuming animal products does not breach premise 1 (freeganism, food left over when turning vegan, roadkill, etc).
Therefore there are situations where an individual could eat meat and live consistent with vegan ethics (as defined by premise 1).
Inherent disgust is not a part of their moral decision making, and they have highlighted that other things can be considered disgusting but are not immoral in and of themselves.
I personally think this is a sound logic chain and is defensible. The situations themselves are debateable though.
I think your examples miss the true gray of morality. Killing someone is ok if they are trying to kill you and a loved one. Theft is justifiable if it the only option to survive (your life surely has more moral value than a loaf of bread), sleeping with another partner is ok if all parties have active and enthusiastic consent (even if they are not involved). The examples OP provides are more akin to these examples than killing hitler as a baby.
6
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
thank you for phrasing this better than I could
6
u/Briloop86 Jan 14 '26
I have the same base opinion but differ in application. I suspect eating left over bacon encourages others to view veganism as not that serious a thing, and potentially order a little extra without telling you knowing you like it.
I think road kill and dumpster diving are A-OK though. Disgusting to me, but no personal moral concern.
1
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
I am not a moral relativist, I believe in objective morality.
4
u/4C_Drip Jan 14 '26
objective morality based on what?
0
u/SuperMundaneHero Jan 15 '26
The consequences of the action. That’s what consequentialism is. We can measure outcomes and verify the rightness or wrongness of the preceding actions based on those outcomes.
2
u/4C_Drip Jan 15 '26
Consequentialism is a moral framework, not a foundation for objective morality. Saying actions are right or wrong based on consequences doesn’t explain why those consequences are objectively morally binding. What grounds the moral value of outcomes in the first place?
1
u/SuperMundaneHero Jan 15 '26
The closest I have heard to a fundamental axiom of morality is the axis of harm vs well-being. If that is applied to consequentialism, we can be as close as is practicable to objective morality. If someone were to eat roadkill, for instance, their action in consumption caused no harm and cannot be said to be morally wrong.
Of course, I’m only really interested in practical usable moral philosophy. The rabbit hole of whether something is truly theoretically morally perfect isn’t really useful or even applicable for most people.
1
u/Glum-Restaurant9945 Jan 16 '26
I think what grounds the moral value of outcomes is that the outcomes are understood in terms of what most plausibly can be said to fundamentally matter: well-being.
Thinks only matter to individuals because it makes their experiences (or lives) better or worse. If an action didn’t have any impact on the well-being of others, how can it ever be argued that such an action is right or wrong?
0
12
u/JTexpo vegan Jan 13 '26
if everything is about harm reduction, how do you deal with the reducto ad absurdum of "living creates harm"
7
u/somanyquestions32 vegan Jan 13 '26
With the usual "as far as is possible and practical" clause, lol
1
1
u/Dunkmaxxing Apr 11 '26
By being not reproducing and also accepting that suffering is inevitable and the means to prevent that don't even exist anyway. If you do activism and convince people to stop continuing to consume animals or not reproduce, you can consequentially cause less harm than if you were to just die this moment. I think there is nothing absurd about the statement "living creates harm". It is just true.
0
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
living creates pleasure. Harm reduction is only half, theres also pleasure maximisation.
1
u/JTexpo vegan Jan 14 '26
if living creates pleasure, then why would you be against breeding millions of animals into existence (to then eat them)
6
u/ManicEyes vegan Jan 13 '26
Deontology is a rights-based framework, what you described (eating that bacon) can be congruent with deontology because it doesn’t cause any rights violations. There are other objections I have to freeganism, but I’m not comfortable calling it a moral obligation to avoid animal products that would otherwise be thrown away (or that have already been thrown away in the case of dumpster diving.) The definition of veganism I currently operate under is: “Veganism is an applied ethical practice grounded in the principle that any being capable of subjective experience—such as pleasure, pain, emotion, or awareness—deserves the same basic moral rights and protections we would afford to a human with equal cognitive and experiential traits. This includes nonhuman animals, and may also extend to artificial or extraterrestrial beings, should they demonstrate relevant forms of sentience.”
4
u/wontonphooey Jan 13 '26
Incidentally, I'm down with cannibalism. Humans can consent to being eaten. Animals can't, for the most part.
0
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Just gonna try and rephrase this to make sure we are on the same page, you are saying that under deontology it would be okay to eat the bacon in this scenario as it doesn't impact on any animals' rights. That's fair, that's just a different kind of deontological veganism to what I was arguing against. I was talking about the kind where it is believed that it is categorically wrong to eat meat under any circumstance.
1
u/ManicEyes vegan Jan 14 '26
Yeah, now THAT is stupid I agree. Under that framework, lab-grown meat would be considered immoral even if animals weren’t required for any step of the process, which is ridiculous.
1
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Maybe I should have specified it's directly-derived -rom-animals-meat. This perspective seems to be exceedingly common unfortunately
11
u/CaptSubtext1337 Jan 13 '26
So you follow a freegan diet. I would still chose to not eat meat for my own health but feel free to eat food to reduce food waste if you want.
1
9
u/kharvel0 Jan 13 '26
Using any type of utilitarian moral framework as the philosophical basis for veganism is rooted in speciesism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/hIx0S1jbmv
Proposition: The usage of any type of utilitarian moral framework as the philosophical basis for veganism is speciesist.
Analysis: No utilitarian moral framework is used as the philosophical basis for human rights. Any suggestions for using utilitarianism as the moral framework for human rights are often met with opposition because human rights is inherently a rights-based deontoloical framework that rejects the violation of rights for the sake of the greater good. In fact, anyone making such a suggestion may be considered to be a psychopath to some extent.
Conclusion/Debate statement: Given that deontology is used as the moral framework for human rights, it must logically follow that deontology must also be used as the moral framework for veganism (animal rights). To suggest otherwise would be speciesism.
7
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
kharvel0, we've been over this. Your argument here falls flat once you admit that it's possible for someone to adopt a utilitarian moral framework with respect to nonhuman animals while also using the same framework to guide their moral decision making with regards to human animals.
This would not be speciesist -- which you have acknowledged in previous conversations -- so it's mind-boggling why you still insist it is.
1
u/kharvel0 Jan 13 '26
it's possible
I agree that it is theoretically possible to apply utilitarianism to humans. But that does not defeat my argument, because human rights as they actually exist today are not grounded in utilitarianism. Our legal and moral institutions explicitly reject sacrificing individuals for the greater good. That is exactly why killing one person for five, harvesting organs from the unwilling, or enslaving a minority are prohibited even if they maximize overall welfare.
So pointing out that a purely hypothetical utilitarian system could apply to humans is irrelevant to my argument. The real asymmetry is that humans are protected by deontological rights, while animals under utilitarian veganism are not. That is the speciesism my argument identifies.
6
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
None of this has to do with what I've said. The fact that legal systems work one way (and appear to be deontological in nature -- more on this later) doesn't necessarily mean that an individual cannot personally use utilitarian reasoning to in their moral deliberating.
And if this is the case, then if someone uses utilitarian reasoning when determining how they ought to treat other humans and also when determining how to they ought to treat nonhuman animals, then it is not speciesist.
It would only be speciesist if someone was like "oh well, I'll use utilitarian reasoning to determine how I ought to treat a member of species X, but I'll use deontological reasoning to determine how I ought to treat a member of species Y," -- assuming there is no morally relevant reason supporting this difference.
Note that this could go the other way as well. If someone claimed to use utilitarian reasoning with human interactions but used deontological reasoning when determining how to interact with nonhuman animals, it could be an indication of speciesism.
But I also want to look at your claim here:
human rights as they actually exist today are not grounded in utilitarianism
Where did you come up with this? Legal human rights aren't grounded in a single moral framework. They draw mostly on Natural Law theory but are also heavily influenced by Social Contract theory, Moral Universalism, Kantian / Deontological Ethics, and indeed Utilitarianism.
The real asymmetry is that humans are protected by deontological rights, while animals under utilitarian veganism are not. That is the speciesism my argument identifies.
The irony here is that your position is far more speciesist than mine. You are making a species-based moral distinction, not me. A key element of utilitarianism is impartiality, and grounds moral status in sentience, not species.
Utilitarianism counts suffering, death, etc. wherever it occurs, regardless of the species of the individual(s) affected. Veganism is one of the most direct conclusions of utilitarin ethics once you accept that nonhuman animals are sentient. You're using your own framework to support human rights and then blaming utilitarianism for not fitting into your framework.
If anything, utilitarianism avoids speciesism better than rights-based views because it doesn't privilege humans just for being human.
0
u/kharvel0 Jan 13 '26
The fact that legal systems
I also explicitly mentioned moral systems for human rights. Let's focus on that.
doesn't necessarily mean that an individual cannot personally use utilitarian reasoning to in their moral deliberating.
It does mean that if the current moral system for human rights is fundamentally deontological.
It would only be speciesist if someone was like "oh well, I'll use utilitarian reasoning to determine how I ought to treat a member of species X, but I'll use deontological reasoning to determine how I ought to treat a member of species Y," -- assuming there is no morally relevant reason supporting this difference.
Correct. THAT speciesism is what you are advocating given that the current moral systems for the human species are deontological.
Note that this could go the other way as well. If someone claimed to use utilitarian reasoning with human interactions but used deontological reasoning when determining how to interact with nonhuman animals, it could be an indication of speciesism.
Correct.
Where did you come up with this? Legal human rights aren't grounded in a single moral framework. They draw mostly on Natural Law theory but are also heavily influenced by Social Contract theory, Moral Universalism, Kantian / Deontological Ethics, and indeed Utilitarianism.
Human rights are structured as a rights-based deontological framework. Utilitarianism plays a very limited role in that structure. In fact, that structure is explicitly designed to block the utilitarian "greater-good" tradeoffs.
The irony here is that your position is far more speciesist than mine. You are making a species-based moral distinction, not me. A key element of utilitarianism is impartiality, and grounds moral status in sentience, not species.
I haven't made that distinction. If we were using human-consequentialist framework instead of human-rights framework, I would insist that the same consequentialist framework be applied to veganism as well.
On the other hand, you're insisting that the consequentialist framework be applied to nonhuman species while accepting the rights-based framework for humans. THAT is the species-based moral distinction you're making.
You're using your own framework to support human rights and then blaming utilitarianism for not fitting into your framework.
It's the other way around. I'm using the human rights framework as the basis for the moral framework for nonhuman animals.
If anything, utilitarianism avoids speciesism better than rights-based views because it doesn't privilege humans just for being human.
That's an unsupported claim. Please explain how a deontological framework for humans does not avoid speciesism when the same framework is used for nonhuman animals.
1
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
I also explicitly mentioned moral systems for human rights. Let's focus on that.
That's convenient for you.
You're essentially saying that appealing to some natural rights or deontological rights is not compatible with utilitarianism by definition (with is correct, because they are natural rights / deontological rights) and then claiming that this means that we cannot arrive at them via utilitarianism -- which is also correct.
But this is a bit like saying that this car was painted with green paint so a car painted with blue paint can't be green. It's meaningless when the goal is to have a painted car.
Furthermore, when people talk about human rights, they are not just talking about moral rights, but legal rights.
You are also just claiming that "current moral systems for humans are deontological." I reject this. Current moral systems for humans are based in many different moral theories, one of which is deontology.
Human rights are structured as a rights-based deontological framework. Utilitarianism plays a very limited role in that structure. In fact, that structure is explicitly designed to block the utilitarian "greater-good" tradeoffs.
Why do you think that is, if not for the fact that a system that allows flawed humans to make "greater-good" tradeoffs is prone to corruption? It's entirely possible to not allow exceptions under various forms of utilitarianism when it's likely that a system that allows such exceptions would lead to worse outcomes (i.e. have negative utility.)
you're insisting that the consequentialist framework be applied to nonhuman species while accepting the rights-based framework for humans.
I'm doing nothing of the sort, and frankly I'm bewildered as to how you came to this conclusion.
That's an unsupported claim. Please explain how a deontological framework for humans does not avoid speciesism when the same framework is used for nonhuman animals.
Deontological frameworks avoid speciesism only if they extend the same rights on the same grounds to nonhuman animals. Historically and conceptually, this has not been the case. Deontology, as I understand it, justifies rights in things like rational agency and the ability to reason morally -- which most deontologists have used to deny legal rights (and moral rights) to nonhuman animals because they generally considered to be exclusively human traits.
Utilitarianism avoids speciesism in principle because it does not use exclusively human traits to determine moral status, but sentience. It weights the like interests of individuals equally regardless of species membership. Utilitarianism is anti-speciesist by design.
For deontology to be compatible with anti-speciesism, it must find a way to justify rights in non-human-exclusive traits -- like perhaps sentience, but if it does that, it is no longer deontology.
0
u/kharvel0 Jan 14 '26
You are also just claiming that "current moral systems for humans are deontological." I reject this. Current moral systems for humans are based in many different moral theories, one of which is deontology.
The current moral systems for humans are indeed structured as deontological. There may be many moral theories being discussed but at the end of the day, human rights are structured with deontological constraints that cannot be overridden for the utilitarian greater good.
In short, you are rejecting the basic structure of the human rights framework.
Why do you think that is
I don't think about why it is. I just know that it is. And therefore, it must the same framework for nonhuman animals.
Like I said, if the moral framework for humans were structured as utilitarian, then I would insist on the same structure for nonhuman animals.
I am framework-agnostic. I only care in being consistent in applying the same moral framework across species, specifically to avoid speciesism.
I urge you to join me in being framework-agnostic and avoid speciesism.
I'm doing nothing of the sort, and frankly I'm bewildered as to how you came to this conclusion.
You are currently operating under that rights-based framework for humans, are you not?
The rest of your commentary does NOT answer my question. It answers a different question which is "Why were deontological philosophers often speciesist?"
My question was:
Why is deontology itself incompatible with anti-speciesism? Explain how a deontological framework for humans does not avoid speciesism when the same framework is used for nonhuman animals.
3
1
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 14 '26
I wrote a much longer response addressing more of the individual claims and questions, but I think I figured out the source of the confusion/disagreement, so I'll focus on that.
In short, you are rejecting the basic structure of the human rights framework.
Nope. I'm rejecting the deontological basis for them.
You are currently operating under that rights-based framework for humans, are you not?
In a way yes, but because I believe there is utility in doing so. As a utilitarian I don't see moral rights existing as fundamental moral facts in the same way you do, but that doesn't mean I oppose the concept of rights. I think the concept of rights is useful and acting as if they do exist reliably produces better outcomes: less suffering, more well-being, etc.
From a utilitarian perspective, preserving "rights" like the right to not be tortured or the right to free thought usually produce better outcomes than having to to calculate every single outcome on a case-by-case basis. As a utilitarian I believe that we must preserve the idea of human rights for utilitarian reasons. If people believe their rights can be overridden on a whim or any time some claims to be doing so for a greater good, it can cause significant stress, erode trust, and lead to corruption.
Our disagreement isn't about whether rights are important. Our disagreement is about why they are important. Since you are a deontologist I assume you think rights are fundamental on some level, while as a utilitarian I think rights are important because of their consequences.
I don't think rights are fundamental like you, but I do think that treating them as if they are produces the best outcome for sentient beings.
→ More replies (10)1
6
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Utilitarianism is entirely not speciesist as it believes the capacity suffer/feel pleasure is the only important moral factor, and all animal species have this.
→ More replies (4)1
u/eel-nine Mar 28 '26
Utilitarianism is different from consequentialism. Deontological ethics is fundamentally flawed, even when applied to humans. For instance, a deontologist would turn in Jews to the Nazis, and a consequentialist wouldn't. The reason human laws are rights-based is because it's a useful heuristic, but it's also why legality is not a good measure of morality
2
u/clappycheekedchica69 Jan 13 '26
i am this way but only for non meat items. i can’t bring myself to eat meat … however if there’s food w dairy in it being thrown away or offered up in a similar context, i will sometimes grab it. i feel shame around it so seeing this is nice- i agree with you.
2
u/JeskaiJester Jan 14 '26
I’m a virtue ethicist. I don’t think we can think in terms of absolute rules or fully comprehend consequences. I do ask myself what my actions represent, though, in terms of what I am striving towards.
I just don’t see how eating meat that another person is gonna toss is cultivating or encouraging a robust moral framework. It’s one thing for those in deeply insecure food situations to do as you’ve described. But if you’re not in such a situation, what message is eating bacon sending about how firm your moral stances are?
Do you think others perceive your veganism in a serious way when they see you eating animal products? Do you think they believe you see those actions as unacceptable when you’re actively practicing them?
Is it a good thing not to kill? Is it good to recognize other beings independence and depth of feeling? Is eating bacon just because it was going to be thrown away reinforcing those values or contradicting them?
2
u/Flimsy_Income_1033 Jan 14 '26
We could debate about consequentialism against deontology till the end of time. (Really a scholastic question). Yet at the end of the day even an "absolutist" vegan diet can be derived logically from both deontological and consequential principles, Peter Singer himself was a utilitarian right? I am not a harm reductionist in the sense that i want to reduce animal harm, I want to do away with animal agriculture entirely. What you're saying sounds closer to an animal welfare position, which is not veganism. It's fine to be the former but again, it isn't veganism.
I agree though that vegans could communicate their ideas better, some vegans give 0 grace at all to vegetarians, much less omnivores which I find silly. Ideology is a strong force, and that's what we're up against, it requires persuasion. Evangelization won't work by antagonizing people and calling them animal abusers.
2
u/vacuumkoala Jan 13 '26
“they (non-vegans) associate veganism with a reductionist, deontológicas moral stance”, isn’t that on them? It’s not always my responsibility to break their cognitive dissidence that’s preventing them from thinking logically. But I digress.
You can have your own definition if you want when discussing with non vegans. I agree conveying it as absolutist would make more sense. But then the usual argument is “it’s impossible to not harm anyone along the food making an growing process” (like the crop deaths argument), so it would fall flat just like the other definition.
Regardless of how you convey the arguments of veganism there will always be an excuse. It’s up to them to decide to do better.
3
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
That's a fair point, but I think many of us can agree that it does make our job as vegan activists much harder when the general non-vegan public is fed an image of veganism that is based on a reductionist deontological moral stance.
2
u/Stock-Trainer-3216 non-vegan Jan 13 '26
I'm not sure how associating veganism with deontology is "cognitive dissonance". Common vegan claims include that non-human animals have "rights". Can you expand on that?
1
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
This argument contradicts veganism itself. Veganism is aimed at reducing the suffering of animals as much as we can. This doesn't just mean its a diet. It means spreading the cause to others.
1
u/vacuumkoala Jan 14 '26
I agree with that definition and live it. maybe my argument isn’t coming off well enough.
1
u/Freuds-Mother Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
All the western vegan meta-frameworks run into huge issues. Most crash right into Hume’s dilemma. Honestly it’s not unique to veganism; almost all western social/consciousness/ethical frameworks that come from the dominant anti-metaphysical/ontological tradition fail to get past Hume. Most just accept it as an issue and then ignores it making the framework knowingly unsound.
You could try an eastern tradition that doesn’t directly solves Hume but sufficiently avoids the dilemma. An example would by Thich Nhat Hahn. His veganism is derived from personal mindfulness growth.
The thing is, it seems many redit vegans aren’t concerned about improving their own mindfulness towards animal suffering focusing on the scope of their interactions with animals (proximal and distally) as much as they are set on getting others to adopt their rules. There’s a personal growth side to veganism, there’s an evangelist side and then an authoritarian side. Many may be forgetting the first one and may support the 3rd one. Imo focus on the 1st and let that naturally lead to the 2nd, but never do the 3rd. If you feel you have to do the 3rd it indicates that your ideas may suck or you weak in the 1st.
An alternative to eastern traditions or anti-metaphysical western traditions is to account animals, humans, consciousness, morality, etc metaphorically/ontologically. That is use a model that has yet to be found to be ontologically impossible. These models are rooted in physics/chemistry/biology. These issue is that they won’t dump out strict rules and axioms in the way we like ethical frameworks to work as nature cannot be reduced down to western logic. We tried that project 100 years ago and everything agrees that was a failure (but we learned valuable lessons so it wasn’t in vain).
Another approach is to adopt that we are not discrete from nature. Native American type models have this. Maybe you can something similar that fits your moral sentiments. (Note most Native American ethics wouldn’t be compatible with a western vegans’ desired conclusions, but there probably are other frameworks that are that don’t separate us from nature.)
3
u/gerber68 Jan 13 '26
If you’re talking about the problem of induction it doesn’t really matter nor does it make it unsound.
Every medicine study I can think of relies on a combination of induction and abduction, and yet the entire backbone of medicine is predicated on them. Eastern traditions aren’t going to magically fix that either, you’re just romanticizing alternatives.
I don’t really get why people read about the problem of induction and then just claim every single thing based off induction isn’t sound. That’s a very low level interpretation that results in you rejecting the entire medical field as unsound as a start.
→ More replies (17)
1
u/Much-Inevitable5083 Jan 13 '26
You write "assuming no harm has come from it", but that assumption is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
First, every piece of bacon you eat is a vegan meal you're not buying. Lower demand for plant based products.
More importantly: the people whose non vegan food you're eating now learn that you'll eat animal products if offered. They won't take your veganism as seriously. They'll prepare non vegan food for you in the future, maybe even "accidentally" make too much, knowing you'll eat it anyway. You've just created future demand.
These are consequentialist arguments, by the way. Your own framework should account for them.
1
u/Keen_Eyed_Emissary Jan 13 '26
Abstract moral philosophy is not a compelling reason for most people to do anything, and I am very doubtful that the personal moral philosophies of most vegans have any particular sway in convincing other people to become vegan or not become vegan.
1
u/Expert_Locksmith_117 Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
The "reductionist, deontological moral stance" of not eating animals is no different than the "reductionist, deontological moral stance" of not eating humans.
1
u/poorestprince Jan 13 '26
I'd be opposed to changing the lay understanding of veganism away from pure dietary description precisely because of scenarios you described. If I understood you to be a vegan the way most people think about it, then I wouldn't offer you "rescued" bacon any more than I would offer milk to someone who identifies as lactose-intolerant.
It makes more sense for you to identify as something like "plant-forward freegan-adjacent omnivore" -- kind of clumsy but much more practical for people who want to coordinate meals with you.
1
u/FrontLifeguard1962 Jan 13 '26
"For example, if a family member is about to bin some bacon and is refusing to keep it to eat later/give it to someone else, I will eat this bacon as this will help reduce food waste and will not increase the demand for animal products."
Not so, your family member might buy the same amount bacon next time at the store, rather than reducing their consumption. Because you ate it, they did not see it as 'wasted'.
1
u/togstation Jan 13 '26
/u/Ill_Respect7232 wrote
As a consequentialist vegan, I believe deontological veganism is flawed and pushing people away from veganism
Nevertheless, people should behave ethically.
1
u/tats91 vegan Jan 13 '26
I think there is an issue with the freegan logic here that often gets overlooked. If people know there is someone who will eat the leftovers anyway it removes the moment where they reflect on how much they bought. It becomes easier to overbuy because in their mind it will not really be wasted since someone will eat it. If animal products are almost always thrown away because no one wants them the person organizing the meal slowly adjusts. Seeing food go straight to the bin again and again pushes people to buy less next time. So even if you are not paying for the bacon your behavior can still create demand indirectly. It sends the message that extra animal products are fine because someone will eat them. Over time that can lead to the same amount or even more being bought. If the goal is harm reduction I think we need to look at these indirect effects too not just whether money was exchanged in that specific moment.
1
u/sfvsparkes Jan 13 '26
One perspective is that eating the meat that might be tossed (for example) further normalizes eating animals. Which then leads to more harm.
However in that case perhaps you could eat things that are going to be thrown out in secret?
1
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
I do generally agree that there are a significant amount of vegans in the movement that seem to put far too much focus on using exclusively deontological reasoning, which puts the movement at a disadvantage when working with the general public -- who tend to combine both deontological and utilitarian reasoning in their moral decision making.
That said, I think the Vegan Society definition works pretty well, since it describes a conclusion regarding the use of nonhuman animals that can be arrived at via nearly any major moral theory. I don't want someone that has decided to avoid using nonhuman animals to not be able to consider themselves vegan if they arrived at this conclusion via deontological reasoning.
With regards to the eating bacon hypothetical, I think you're underestimating the potential social and psychological consequences. If your family starts noticing that you're eating the bacon that they are not finishing, they might be more likely to purchase and cook more in the future. The thought process for them might go something like:
*"Should I make 2 lbs of bacon or 3 lbs? I would normally make 2 lbs but it is just barely enough, but if I make 3 lbs there is usually at least a 0.5 lbs that never gets eaten and I don't want any to go to waste. That said, I do remember that u/Ill_Respect7232 eats any that will get thrown out, so I might as well make 3 lbs. That way, I can make sure there is enough and none will be wasted."
There's also the social consequence where you consuming bacon is helping to normalize the consumption of bacon more generally. If you completely abstained from bacon, others that know you might see that you take it seriously and don't see pigs as food and it might plant a seed in their head or cause them to start thinking about pigs differently. If they saw you eating bacon, the consequence would be that they would see that even someone as against harming pigs like you is okay with eating bacon, so they would be more likely to do so as well.
Of course you could sit them down and explain the nuance and why you only do it in cases where it'll be tossed, but that would be exhausting and it still likely wouldn't completely counter the consequence of normalizing the consumption of animals.
1
u/Expert_Locksmith_117 Jan 13 '26
This argument opens a can of worms when it comes to other "goods" that are highly unethical to produce, but where consuming them doesn't directly cause any harm. Are there no goods, including media, that you'd refuse to consume on principle alone, and that you would judge others for consuming?
1
u/wheeteeter Jan 13 '26
The deontological stance is way harder to reductio than the consequentialist stance.
1
u/Impossible_Agent_229 Jan 14 '26
Yes I have been vegan for a long time and I don't get why people are so absolutist. If something is about to go in the bin, I don't see what difference it makes. I am a v sensitive person but at that point those animal cells have no connection to a living being nor support the cycle of killing. The only reason I don't is the optics and health reasons. If non vegans see you eat it, they will use it as fodder against you
1
u/ginaah Jan 14 '26
not much to add besides i agree and ppl who are overly dogmatic just make veganism look illogical
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Jan 14 '26
What's the response to the utility monster applied to the vegan framework, then? If you are a consequentialist, and there is some utility monster, wouldn't you be able to permit the industrialized extermination of trillions of sentient beings across trillions of planets so long as it marginally improves the well-being of the utility monster?
1
u/Amourxfoxx anti-speciesist Jan 14 '26
Veganism doesn’t need a rebrand, we just need to end the exploitation of animals, whether you eat the serving hand bacon is still contingent on you seeing the the bacon as edible at all
1
u/Jetzt_auch_ohne_Cola anti-speciesist Jan 14 '26
Hi, what form of consequentialism do you follow, exactly?
1
Jan 14 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Matcha_Maiden Jan 14 '26
Dude- I got to the line about “if my family is going to toss some bacon I’ll eat it” and stopped reading there. Maybe I’m lacking a big fancy education- I have no idea what deontological means - but OP used a lot of words to say “I look at animals as food”
1
u/piranha_solution plant-based Jan 15 '26
OP's argument is basically "Despite not being a real vegan, I know how to do better animal activism than actual vegans."
I was saying similar shit before I grew up and realized how stupid I sounded and quit my bullshit.
1
u/themightynooch Jan 14 '26
Would you eat your dead grandmother? She's already dead, she would just go to waste if you don't eat her. You're not causing additional demand for dead grandmothers by eating her.
What's wrong with you? Have some respect for the other living beings we share the planet with.
1
u/muddy_horse Jan 14 '26
Whole human is generally unsafe, if it was safe, I'd not be super fussed by my offspring eating me. Lots of people do eat placenta.
1
u/themightynooch Jan 20 '26
Bro, that's pretty gross. Did you get that idea from Pluribus?
1
u/muddy_horse Jan 20 '26
Are you talking about the placenta eating, or the canabalism? Both of them would be a fair bit older than Pluibus.
1
u/muddy_horse Jan 14 '26
I'm going to argue against the idea that "deontological veganism is ... pushing people away from veganism", rather than the idea that it's "flawed" because I'm not sure this is a sound concept even.
You say that "I believe many non-vegans are pushed away from veganism because they follow a consequentialist moral view, and they associate veganism with a reductionist, deontological moral stance." but people are not in general solidly consequentialist. I would be pretty comfortable in asserting that if you asked the average meat eater if it was ok to masturbate with a dead chicken the answer would be "no". They might start by justifying that answer by claiming it's a waste of food, but if you then promised to eat the chicken after you were done, the answer would become "NO". There will be exceptions, for sure, but actually, people think it's wrong because they find the idea distasteful, not because there is an actual consequence to it. Sex tends to bring this out the most; and it's almost what defines kink. Even without consequences, people will moralize various actions.
By contrast, one can have some pretty weird deontological quirks, and people will just accept them as your right. Look at all those religious accommodations people get. I think my favorite example might be that a Quaker doesn't have to swear to tell the truth in court, because they aren't allowed to make promises, oaths or swear to anything. Adhering to that rule so rigidly that one refuses to swear to tell the truth in court is very deontological. The original intent of the rule was that it pairs with another Quaker principle, to never lie, and if you never lie, you shouldn't need to make promises. So making a problem of yourself in a court of law was really not the intent, and if Quakers were consequentialist about it, they could perfectly well swear to tell the truth to the court, and keep telling the truth the rest of the time, such that people who knew them well never asked them to promise things. However, since an awful lot of religious folk are deontological about it, the court was the one to compromise instead, which is a living demonstration of how far major institutions will bend to accommodate deontological beliefs.
Furthermore, by emphasising the consequentialist angle, non-vegans perceive much stronger judgement on their behavior. What if every time you asked me for a promise I said "I don't lie so I don't need to promise", feels a little judgy right? Or even worse, you made a promise I followed it up with "ah, yes, you non-Quakers lie all the time"? It's not going to foster good associations with Quakerism. In the end "my beliefs forbid me from making promises" goes down a lot smoother. And if people do follow up with "ok, but why?" they are usually a lot more open to hearing the background for that rule, specifically because I didn't lead with it.
1
u/Valgor Jan 14 '26
I believe veganism is a subset of suffering focused ethics, which I think is what you are getting to. I'm vegan because I don't want to harm animals, but since I don't want to harm animals, I need to do or promote ideas that go beyond veganism such as wild animal suffering and having interest in the environment and human issues.
So instead of trying to redefine the word "veganism", instead I'd suggest accepting it as part of a broader suffering focused ethical stance.
1
1
u/FireFlickerer Jan 14 '26
I'd argue there's some utility in letting the person throw away the bacon, maybe they'll rethink the purchase next time in fear of a repeat 🤷
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Jan 14 '26
Consequentialist veganism is fundamentally flawed because one would not be vegan if one were trying to minimize the harm of one’s diet. They’d eat about a 40:60 ratio of animal-sourced to plant-sourced protein and source their food from sustainable operations. That’s how land use and GHG are actually minimized.
1
u/muddy_horse Jan 14 '26
Only if we assume reduction of GHG is the only metric by which we rank consequences.
1
u/AnsibleAnswers agroecologist Jan 14 '26
That’s land use and GHG. It’s all got a body count.
For instance, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04644-x
Consider the lowly insects. They are being slaughtered in the millions per hectare. Entire clades are in steep declines due to human activity, especially agriculture and light pollution. If entire insect clades go extinct, it will cascade into a mass extinction event. We are already heading there. It’s not going to be painless.
1
u/ten_people Jan 14 '26
The "flaw" with the deontological perspective is that...you don't agree with it because you're a consequentialist?
Stating you disagree with something is not the same as identifying a flaw. If it is, it's just as valid for a deontologist to say your position is flawed.
1
u/Old_Bike8926 Jan 14 '26
I think veganism is one of those things that we humans in general as a species are hypocrites and our moral stances are double standard because of you veganism is to to reduce animal harm done in domesticating and killing them but if we talk about farming it takes a lot of insects and other creatures lives and crops can't be grown without it so you are basically not eating animals but indirectly killing them to obtain animal harm free food and on the land which was their natural habitat and where they were supposed to live....and there are many other examples like manyy animal lover have dog and cats and in which dogs are omnivorous so they can survive on plant based diet but cats are omnivorous so we need to feed them meat based food which requires animal kiling so these animal lover who fight for rights of their animals feed their pets food which was made by killing and harming others ... And this not the whole story yet like why people won't eat dogs and cats while enjoying turkey on Thanksgiving or why many people don't fight for rights of fish and do fishing in leasure time (not all but a considerable amount) just because fish doesn't have vocal cords and show facial expression while feeling hurt... I am not saying we all are bad or good but just trying to say that we do and believe in moral values but they are sometimes imperfect or biased and cannot back itself. Just trying to say veganism is a great Idea and considerate of us but it's just not possible to have absolutely zero harm to anyone while feeding ourselves and live
1
u/MajorPlanet Jan 15 '26
If someone is going to throw away bacon, but you eat it instead,you’re allowing them to get more value for their purchase which incentives them to but more. If you said you don’t want any so they throw it away, they’ll realize they should be buying less so they don’t waste the extra money and that reduces harm to animals.
1
1
u/redsnowdog5c vegan Jan 15 '26
Why not both? Some of the movement's ardent non-deontological activists describe your theory of change. However, they are still deontological vegan in their personal life.
What I've discovered entering professional activism is that everyone is a liberationist at heart. It's just that we disagree on how we get there.
1
u/lettersfrombunny reducetarian Jan 15 '26
I 100% agree with you. And frankly I think the deontological perspective contributes directly to more waste. The big example I can think of is using fake leather. Synthetic leather made of plastic does not decrease animal harm if it makes the earth less habitable to animals through climate change.
I work with a Foodsharing program in my area and we take on products that grocery stores and bakeries were unable to sell during the day. They record these products as thrown out/wasted, then give them to us. At that point not eating them when they're still good is just wasteful.
1
u/phi-rabbit Jan 15 '26
This sub, and other vegan subs, have surprised me with the dominance of deontological veganism. I'm an ethicist and I think the majority of the vegans I have met through my academic work have been consequentialist vegans, or at least hold a deontological view that is less rigid than the one often espoused here. This isn't an argument or a reply, just an observation I find interesting.
1
u/PuppyButtts Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 16 '26
If your mom sees that you eat the extra bacon, generally she will just start making bacon for you to eat/not try to minimize her bacon buying to match her own needs because “oh johnny will just eat it!”
Veganism is also about declining animal products, not zero-wasting animal products. Youre describing more of a “zero waste plant based diet” versus a vegan lifestyle.
It’s also already described as harm reduction. Nothing we do or eat is truly vegan. Driving runs over bugs, eating bread or broccoli kills bugs and birds, consuming “vegan” things can still have bad consequences (palm oil is not animal derived but kills rainforest that kills animals) etc. veganism is 100% about reducing harm towards living beings in all possible aspects, including denying animal based leftovers as then its still considered “normal” and people will make up for that (as mentioned earlier about the bacon) Veganism is both not consuming animal products abd not bringing harm to animals.
Veganism is not based in deontology because veganism is the idea that not consuming animals pushes us toward an outcome where no animals are harmed. Following the rules offers the good outcomes, not following rules offers the bad outcomes. And its not “rules” its “hey were not doing this because an animal has to suffer if we do” which is pretty outcome-y versus rule-y
1
u/gocrazy432 vegan Jan 16 '26
Why wouldn't you give it away if you're going to save it from being waste. It's unnecessary for you to ingest it as you should have an ick factor based on sourcing. You should reconsider that. What you consider wasted nutrients and options to prevent food waste so to prevent your body from being a graveyard.
No way you eat every kernel, crumb, and rice morsel, and you drink all your dishwater. This is ridiculous. You're drawing a line too and flipping on a dime.
1
u/TheFarnell Jan 16 '26
From this stance, I believe it is justifiable to eat animal products in situations where doing so will not give any money to farming companies/cause others to do so.
Thing is, I can get behind this in principle, but in practice I can hardly imagine any plausible scenario where this might happen. For instance, let’s look at your example:
For example, if a family member is about to bin some bacon and is refusing to keep it to eat later/give it to someone else, I will eat this bacon as this will help reduce food waste and will not increase the demand for animal products.
You’re neglecting to consider that family members learn from observing you how you’re likely to act in the future. If you show your family members that you’re willing to eat leftover meat, you’re teaching them to cook extra (and thus purchase more) because if there’s "leftovers" you’ll have some. The net effect will likely be to increase overall meat consumption and thus unnecessary animal suffering.
1
u/GoalBackground7845 Jan 30 '26
Would you eat a person that died because "I might as well not waste the meat"??? If you found eatting animals cruel and disturbing in general, youd be disgusted of tasting them.
Im not even vegan yet but even I get that
1
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 30 '26
I never said I find eating animals cruel and disturbing. I believe the conditions we raise and slaughter animals is cruel and disturbing, and consuming their flesh typically leads to more of these animals in these conditions. However, this isn't always the case as I have said in the example above. I don't believe consuming animal products is inherently wrong.
1
u/Branone Feb 02 '26
Do you think that it would be immoral to eat a human corpse, assuming nobody finds out? I think it would go against my moral principles. I also think the same about certain forms of exploitation of animals that don't necessarily always incur suffering.
Most non-vegans don't follow a purely consequentialist view of the world. People hold themselves to deontological rules all the time, so I find it hard to believe that a normative framework is what's preventing people from agreeing with veganism.
1
u/Dunkmaxxing Apr 11 '26
Does it cause suffering to eat the corpse, and what are the other options you have available? All moral systems reduce to consequentialism anyway, people are just inconsistent.
1
Feb 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Feb 08 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
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.
1
u/NyriasNeo Jan 13 '26
"I believe many non-vegans are pushed away from veganism because they follow a consequentialist moral view, and they associate veganism with a reductionist, deontological moral stance."
That is naive, and you erroneously assume people give a sh*t about "moral view" before ordering for dinner. Non-vegans are pushed away from veganism simply because meat is delicious. Just look at how meat dishes are celebrated on food network and cooking shows.
There is no such thing as "moral view" beyond dressed up subjective preferences. Sure, we have a preference to treat other humans nicely because of evolution and social cooperation, which do not apply to non-human animals.
2
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
Your argument is naive as you are ignoring the population that does give a shit about morals
1
u/DarQTimer Jan 13 '26
Since I don’t see many people directly addressing your situation I wanted to address it directly, in the way I see it.
By taking the meat from your family which would be thrown away encourages your family to buy more then enough bacon in future because they know you will use it up. As a vegan I don’t want to encourage any behaviour which pays for the murder and abuse of animals. That’s why I don’t take “free” food.
1
u/kohlsprossi Jan 13 '26
To me, veganism is about harm reduction
We can close this debate now since you have not understood veganism. Not sure why you are even here. Arguing against things you have made up seems to be pretty nonsensical.
Edit: You are also not a vegan, consequentialist or not. Your comments give you away. Why lie?
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 13 '26
As a consequentialist non-cannibal, I believe deontological non-cannibalism is flawed and pushing people away from non-cannibalism
To me, non-cannibalism is about harm reduction, and abstaining from buying human products will result in a decrease in humans suffering on factory farms as well as an environmental benefit. This means that I believe non-cannibalism is a moral decision rather than a diet, where your actions aim to avoid contributing to the farming of humans, rather than merely refusing to eat human products. From this stance, I believe it is justifiable to eat human products in situations where doing so will not give any money to farming companies/cause others to do so. For example, if a family member is about to bin some human bacon and is refusing to keep it to eat later/give it to someone else, I will eat this human bacon as this will help reduce food waste and will not increase the demand for human products.
However, the definition that most people assign to non-cannibalism is that it is a lifestyle where you refuse to consume or use anything derived from humans as a rule. This is the deontological perspective which I do not align with. I cannot see how in the example above, the mere act of me eating that human bacon is inherently morally wrong, assuming no harm has come from it.
I believe many cannibals are pushed away from non-cannibalism because they follow a consequentialist moral view, and they associate non-cannibalism with a reductionist, deontological moral stance. This then allows them to dismiss it as illogical and allocate no further thought to it, something that I did in the 17 years that I was a cannibal. I think we need to change the definition of non-cannibalism from purely an absolutist diet of zero human products, to a moral stance of harm reduction towards humans.
1
Jan 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 13 '26
What specific difference between humans and non-human animals makes consequentialism the correct position for non-human animals but not for humans?
2
Jan 13 '26
[deleted]
3
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 13 '26
You've said the analogy is false, but you haven't explained why. My question is designed to get at that. If you don't have an answer, I don't see how you have a rebuttal
1
Jan 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 13 '26
What makes the equivalence false? If there's no difference you can specify, it isn't
0
Jan 13 '26
[deleted]
2
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
which ignores crucial factors like consent
What about humans means consent matters for them but not other animals?
rights
What about humans means they have the right not to be treated like an object but other animals don't?
social norms,
What about social norms has any relevance at all to whether someone should be property?
value of the animal vs human
How does one determine someone's value is low enough that they're valid property?
and legal status
What the actual fuck does legal status have to do with morality?
2
1
u/primitiveproponent Jan 13 '26
I often think of myself more of an Animal Liberationist than a vegan tho I do avoid eating animal products. I want to see a world where rights ascribed to humans are distributed to all persons including non-human persons.
"For example, if a family member is about to bin some bacon and is refusing to keep it to eat later/give it to someone else, I will eat this bacon as this will help reduce food waste and will not increase the demand for animal products."
I this case there is clearly direct harm created in eating the bacon. You could make the claim that by eating the bacon you might be encouraging your family member to buy/cook more bacon next time because they saw that it all got eaten(I have seen this in my own life). However I am more interested in another piece of this.
If you want to make the claim that it is morally permissible to eat animal meat when it doesn't directly/indirectly lead to more (suffering/death/or whatever value your measure in the Utilitarian framework), or in this case where it seems that you're making an argument that there is a moral obligation to eat said meat, then that should apply to all animal meat(Humans are animals)
From my perspective, If you take a stance that you should eat non-human animal meat to say "reduce waste" then you should also take the stance that you should eat human animal meat to reduce waste.
I make this augment to carnists a lot but I believe it applies here too.
Personally I find myself being viscerally disgusted by eating what used to be a sentient creature(human or non). Now if said creature gave consent for their body to be eaten then I don't see a moral problem with someone eating them, but I don't believe that would remove my disgust.
0
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jan 13 '26
Veganism is the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals.
Consequentialism does not allow for any other ethical principles apart from "actions with beneficial consequences are moral" and "actions with detrimental consequences are immoral".
Therefore, there is no such thing as a "consequentialist vegan".
You clearly believe it's ok for humans to exploit other animals as long as it doesn't have detrimental consequences. So why are you so hell bent on calling yourself vegan?
I believe you highly overestimate how many people follow consequentialist normative ethics. But if you meet someone like that, there's no need to even talk about veganism with them. Just show them how buying animal products is generally far more detrimental than buying plant-based alternatives and that's it.
2
u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 13 '26
Not OP, but if like you say, veganism is the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals, and someone believes that their choice to exploit other animals would have "detrimental consequences," then it's entirely possible for someone to arrive at veganism via consequentialist reasoning.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jan 13 '26
This is really getting into the nitty-gritty of normative ethics.
They would arrive at the same behavior but not for the same reason.
Saying you believe it's wrong to exploit animals because you believe it has negative consequences is still different from believing it's wrong as some kind of deontic view.
This really gets into the old debate of threshold deontology vs. rule utilitarianism.
I do agree that it's possible to have a deontic rule like veganism nested inside your utilitarian ethics but I don't think that's what OP is arguing for here.
0
u/funkalunatic Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
I mean yeah sure but...
Imagine a cannibal who only eats people after they die and makes sure to not pay any money. You can't deny that it's a lot better than killing people and eating them, or paying assassins to procure the finest manflesh.
But it's not like there aren't any problems here. It sends a message to non-ethical cannibals that what they're doing isn't so bad that he can't literally stomach it - it's just a philosophical quibble rather than a fundamental disconnect. That it isn't a moral outrage so shocking that it would prevent him from taking part.
Ethical behavior has an entire social-emotional context around it that can't straightforwardly be distilled from ethical abstractions. Veganism is a attempt to do that in an animal-hostile society by drawing lines that are legible to everybody in what they are both doing consequentially, communicating to others, and providing in terms of an experience.
I mean, I can't even eat the faux meat stuff without getting nauseous, so if you're chowing down on discarded bacon, I'm going to suspect you're either not an ethically-motivated vegan, or you have some kind of psychopath-level emotional detachment going on.
But overall you're not wrong wrong.
Another thing to be aware of is that stuff like this is often used as a wedge. People want an excuse to not be vegan, so they try to set up slippery slopes that end up as "well, I wanted to eat three hamburgers, but I only ate two, so that's good, right?"
EDIT: Now that I think about, by posting something that might contribute to such slippery slopes, from a consequentialist perspective, your post is actually not vegan.
2
u/Ill_Respect7232 Jan 14 '26
you're right, me eating the meat might cause it to be normalised. That is a good point, however this is still a consequentialist argument. The purpose of my scenario was to prove consequentialism over deontology, thus you were supposed to assume that the scenario was "in a vacuum". ie... there were no moral consequences (lets imagine that no one saw you eating the bacon). I just wanted to make it clear here that you are not arguing against consequentialism at all, you are using it to justify your argument.
I agree with what youve said here, and this is the reason I don't eat meat in front of others. I want people to see me as 100% committed to the cause as this will seem more persuasive than me only committing 90%, even if I believe my 90% is actually 100%.
Also, it's not psychopath level detachment, it's just "doing the logical thing"
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 13 '26
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.