Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Vegans shouldn't have pets. If the ethos of veganism is consent for the things others give then it should be thought of as slavery for them to own any, especially if they feed a carnivorous animal a vegan food alternative.
Amen.
i heard of stories of vegans giving vegan food to CATS or dogs, dont know if most of them are true though.
Ownership of an animal for the purpose of companionship is exploitation of an animal. If it is practicable and practical to avoid, a vegan should.
Veganism aside, having to make life and death decisions on another individual's behalf is a terrible thing. Intentionally causing an individual to become unable to care for themselves is one of the most abusive things that can be done to them.
Lastly, I would not even bring a human into this world, let alone someone I knew would be treated all their lives as property, whom I love but am ultimately powerless to protect.
Can you explain a bit about why you think being a caretaker/guardian for an animal, is inherently exploitative?
I would say that if you pay to buy an animal, that's exploitative and harmful, but I don't see the exploitation in, say, adopting a dog from an animal shelter - the dog is not harmed by that in any way, it is an improvement to the lives of the dog and the human, no? what am I missing?
(vegan btw)
I'd also add that buying an individual with the preformed intention of manipulating it into loving you is fucked up from any number of moral and philosophical perspectives.
Yeah, I'm against buying animals, like I said. I think there's nothing wrong with adopting an animal with the intention of caring for and building a relationship with that animal, though, in the same way that one might adopt a child - what do you think about that?
I didn't say that caretaking is exploitation; it's not exploitation to operate an animal sanctuary, or to donate money to an animal sanctuary. I said very specifically: owning an animal for the purpose of companionship is exploitation.
Exploitation and harm are not the same thing. You can't cancel out exploitation by doing "good things". And we have to be extremely careful when we take it upon ourselves to decide what is good and bad for another, and impose life consequences on that individual.
How can you tell it's exploitation? Well, consider that you have a certain budget, and you decide that either you are going to donate it to a shelter, or you're going to adopt an animal yourself. Which one seems more personally appealing? It's having an animal in your life that loves you, right? (Lets say so, for discussion.)
Even though a shelter could support more animals with the same amount of money, it's still less appealing than owning an animal. Because you're personally getting something out of owning the pet. If you can't get what you want without an animal, then definitionally you need to exploit the animal to get what you want.
Once you are getting something out of it, everything changes in your brain. As a vegan, you know how easy it is to lie to yourself and convince yourself that monstrous atrocity is actually no big deal. It also changes the dynamic. Are your own emotional needs going to come up for example when you are trying to make end of life decisions, for example? Are you going to be able to put the needs of the animal above your own needs in every situation when you are emotionally dependent on the animal? Are you even going to realize if you fail to?
The emotional difference between owning a pet and providing sanctuary is relevant and important. Veganism doesn't merely protect animals, it protects animals FROM US. It also protects US from our latent carnism that seeks to engage in self-deceit and excuse the terrible things (or even just the less than principled things) we do. A vegan who wants to help strays and abandoned farm animals should donate their time and money to a shelter. It's a great way to have a chance to interact with animals in a way that is most compatible with veganism.
And if you really really really want a pet... do it. Veganism isn't the final word on what is right and wrong. Your personal philosophy can come to the conclusion that you are doing the right thing. But both integrity and the safety of the animal require that you recognize that you are stepping outside your veganism, and it is no longer keeping you or your loved ones safe.
Thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply, I appreciate it! I'm interested in discussing this further, I'll reply inline, if I don't mention something you may assume that I agree with you or that I'm happy to concede the point for the sake of discussion
I disagree with that - for example, I think you'd agree that birdwatching isn't exploitative, right? For me, exploitation is when you put your own needs/wants before the needs/wants of an animal. Just simply gaining some benefit from an interaction with an animal isn't necessarily exploitative - though it certainly can be, and often is.
To your broader point, it sounds to me like you're kind of scared of yourself, like you don't trust your own abilities to discern right from wrong. I completely understand that perspective, because I have issues with feeling that way about myself sometimes too.
Your points about emotion clouding our judgment and not necessarily always putting the interests of the animal before our own is well made, but it kind of assumes that the staff at the animal shelter would be somehow more resistant to this issue. It's like you're offloading the ethical burden of having to make decisions for an animal's wellbeing to someone else and assuming that they'll handle it better than you will - an assumption which, frankly, is probably wrong.
I get the vibe that you want to live as closely aligned with your values as possible, which results in a kind of pathological avoidance of responsibility - we can't get it wrong/make a mistake if we just choose not to take any action.
But the reality is that, as vegans, we're far better than average at being able to provide a loving, caring home for animals than most. Shelters have limited space, staffing and resources, and while I agree from a utilitarian perspective that the money you'd spend on housing one animal would do more good if it was allocated to shelters, it doesn't make the selfish choice inherently exploitative, I don't think.
Anyways, not criticising you at all, I trust you know what's best for you, but I'm still very skeptical that acting as a guardian for an animal is inherently non-vegan.
You're lying to yourself. Take care.
Okay, fair enough. Thanks, you too - thanks for the engaging discussion!
My pet adopted itself, and goes wherever it want. What do you say to that?
I would remind you that cats are an invasive pest that cause global mass extinction and locally devastate entire ecosystems. I would remind you that HOUSE CATS ALONE make up a category that causes more deaths to birds and mammals in North America -- a place where they do not belong at all -- than any other cause. I would remind you that the Earth has fewer than half the birds it did when I was born. I would remind you that cats who are left outdoors live significantly shorter lives and suffer more diseases and major injuries than indoor cats.
I would go so far as to suggest you are romanticizing the situation and relying on your own "common sense" rather than actually educating yourself on the risks and supposed benefits.
They would probably say letting the animal be free is neglect. Glad you and your pet found each other
Okay, I will bite...
Your logic is completely flawed and it seems like an uneducated take at best. A troll comment at its worst. Veganism is about humans doing all that reasonably can be expected to reduce animal suffering.
By adopting rescues, suffering is reduced. Breeding of course does not constitute to that goal.
The alternatives are: letting then suffer on the streets or by killing them.
Killing animals goes against the core principle of veganism.
Adopting them is compassion.
Personally I would not consider myself an "owner" of a pet. I am simply taking care of them. Yes, it started involuntarily. Just like with a human orphan child that gets abandoned. They are scared and alone and do not have the full understanding of the world. It's an intervention.
The fact that many pets eat meat might be counterintuitive at first sight. However, when you dive down in the philosophy then you will realize vegans do not intend force this way on other animals. Especially animals that have evolved to be carnivorous. Humans are omnivores that can completely sustain on plant material alone. Cats can not and for dogs it's an ongoing debate.
Then, to add, most pet food is simply leftovers from the meat industry and plant matter. All this leftover meat would otherwise be wasted. Would you live on SPAM?
Feel free to form your own opinion, but don't spew this hypocritical stance that you oppose upon vegans, like you get to have a say in the ethics. It's easy to contest other philosophies while contributing nothing.
Tell me, how are you improving the world? Show me how you are free of hypocrisy. You'd be the first human...
You're also not distinguishing between giving animals sanctuary and keeping them as personal pets; those are different things.
You're arguing (bombastically and with quite a bit of disrespect to the person you are having a conversation with) that having pets is good and moral, not that it is vegan. Veganism doesn't say anything about being nice to animals, giving animals nice homes, or even not euthanizing animals. It says, don't exploit animals.
This is a thread about controversial opinions and you're accusing me of trolling? That's rather self-righteous of you. You would take it upon yourself to declare what's best for the dog by "involuntarily" controlling their freedom of movement and food intake. If you're willing to purchase meat, whether in processed or butchered form, then you're also participating in an industry that harms animals for profit. I'm glad you're at least aware you can be a hypocrite yourself.