Puppies are different because we have an evolutionary deal with dogs. They care about our emotions and we care about theirs. The evolutionary deal we have with pigs and chickens is that we kill and eat them.
This seems exactly like the appeal to nature in the post. In addition, the notion of framing a continued relationship of compulsory industrialized predation as a "deal" (implying some sort of mutual consent) seems very wrong. Maybe pigs would also agree to care about our emotions if offered the deal of the dog, rather than being forced into the "deal" of suffering for humanity's amusement.
Perhaps you underestimate the moral wisdom of the pig
But I suppose given that assumption, fair enough. It also seems to render the question of ethical activity moot to espouse "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must", though
Well written essay. I would like to make the observation that if one chooses to eat meat (which means participating in the entire enterprise necessary to provide it for consumption), then one must accept the full moral culpability of all the choices made to make that animal protein available to ones plate.
To fail that responsibility (or rationalize it away in the ways you've laid out in your essay) is the true horror of it. Its the nonchalance, the shrug, the "oh well" or worse, not consume it completely, leave it on the plate, waste it by throwing it away.
I can't help but think if people had to participate in the raising of the animal, then perform the killing and then the rendering, meat consumption would significantly drop. At the very least, it would become a hell of lot more mindful and not done with casual absentmindedness.
I'm sympathetic to no-factory-farming, but this cannot possibly be right.
"I would like to make the observation that, if one chooses to wear clothes (which means participating in the entire enterprise of sweat shops in third world developing countries responsible for all manner of human rights violations, slavery, disease, and death), then one must accept the full moral culpability of all the choices made to make those clothes available to ones closet."
I haven't thought much about this, but I do know this isn't right! But I've just replaced the words in your comment with another bad thing with knock-on effects we don't consider. So, there must be additional qualifications that are necessary.
It is completely possible to have a consistent stance on this though. Clothes is a necessity for human life in the same way that food is, or close enough (depending on your country's weather). It is completely possible to bypass a large part of the unethical part of food industry (the meat industry) by abstaining from meat, in the same way that you can avoid a large part of the unethical part of the clothing industry by buying clothes from thrift store or looking for donations. It is completely possible to have a coherent worldview and condemn both overconsumption of clothes/fast fashion and eating meat.
In this comparison,
Eating = wearing clothes
Being vegan or vegetarian = only buying clothes from thrift stores and/or ethical sources (a local tailor who uses ethically sourced materials).
I like this move, but I'm still not totally convinced! A huge part of a good's economic value comes from its resale, so if one is convinced that participating in the economic mill of unethical goods is also unethical, then I'm not sure that buying thrift circumvents that. However, I'm on board with ethically sourced materials. I still disagree with vegans for other reasons, but they're directionally correct.
Do people buy clothes specifically with the resale value in mind ? I don't think so unless we're going in the realm of luxury fashion (where I would agree with you), but that's a vast minority of clothing. I was more thinking about Zara type stores where most people's clothes come from.
To my knowledge, most thrifted pieces (though that may depend on where you live to be fair) are donated, not purchased, and so the person who sells to the thrift shop doesn't make a profit, and since those donations often happen years after the clothes were bought, there's no way the seller would have planned to make some sort of profit when purchasing the good (as opposed to a car or a household appliance).
I think the best critique of thrift shops is that simple presence of thrift shops motivates people to buy excess clothing (especially from very cheap brands like Shein) knowing they could get rid of them "ethically" (as they don't know or don't care that most of these clothes will be sent straight to the garbage). Plus, resale plateforms like vinted might encourage mindless consumption since it gives an "easy out" with the clothes, or resellers (I think resale plateform are a bigger environmental problem than thrift shops most of the time).
Puppies are different because we have an evolutionary deal with dogs. They care about our emotions and we care about theirs. The evolutionary deal we have with pigs and chickens is that we kill and eat them.
does your 'nietzscheanism' extend to cases of human-human abuse/oppression?
This seems exactly like the appeal to nature in the post. In addition, the notion of framing a continued relationship of compulsory industrialized predation as a "deal" (implying some sort of mutual consent) seems very wrong. Maybe pigs would also agree to care about our emotions if offered the deal of the dog, rather than being forced into the "deal" of suffering for humanity's amusement.
Yeah but we won. If the pigs conquered us they’d farm us for food. I’m a Nietzschean.
Perhaps you underestimate the moral wisdom of the pig
But I suppose given that assumption, fair enough. It also seems to render the question of ethical activity moot to espouse "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must", though
"Fred is, obviously, a monster."
I simply did not have this reaction to reading about Fred's actions.
Well, you're certainly living up to your name.
Well, not saying I'm right or wrong, just pointing out the reaction exists.
What are the moral, nutritional, and environmental differences between being a vegetarian and a vegan(currently vegetarian)
Well written essay. I would like to make the observation that if one chooses to eat meat (which means participating in the entire enterprise necessary to provide it for consumption), then one must accept the full moral culpability of all the choices made to make that animal protein available to ones plate.
To fail that responsibility (or rationalize it away in the ways you've laid out in your essay) is the true horror of it. Its the nonchalance, the shrug, the "oh well" or worse, not consume it completely, leave it on the plate, waste it by throwing it away.
I can't help but think if people had to participate in the raising of the animal, then perform the killing and then the rendering, meat consumption would significantly drop. At the very least, it would become a hell of lot more mindful and not done with casual absentmindedness.
I'm sympathetic to no-factory-farming, but this cannot possibly be right.
"I would like to make the observation that, if one chooses to wear clothes (which means participating in the entire enterprise of sweat shops in third world developing countries responsible for all manner of human rights violations, slavery, disease, and death), then one must accept the full moral culpability of all the choices made to make those clothes available to ones closet."
I haven't thought much about this, but I do know this isn't right! But I've just replaced the words in your comment with another bad thing with knock-on effects we don't consider. So, there must be additional qualifications that are necessary.
It is completely possible to have a consistent stance on this though. Clothes is a necessity for human life in the same way that food is, or close enough (depending on your country's weather). It is completely possible to bypass a large part of the unethical part of food industry (the meat industry) by abstaining from meat, in the same way that you can avoid a large part of the unethical part of the clothing industry by buying clothes from thrift store or looking for donations. It is completely possible to have a coherent worldview and condemn both overconsumption of clothes/fast fashion and eating meat.
In this comparison,
Eating = wearing clothes
Being vegan or vegetarian = only buying clothes from thrift stores and/or ethical sources (a local tailor who uses ethically sourced materials).
I like this move, but I'm still not totally convinced! A huge part of a good's economic value comes from its resale, so if one is convinced that participating in the economic mill of unethical goods is also unethical, then I'm not sure that buying thrift circumvents that. However, I'm on board with ethically sourced materials. I still disagree with vegans for other reasons, but they're directionally correct.
Do people buy clothes specifically with the resale value in mind ? I don't think so unless we're going in the realm of luxury fashion (where I would agree with you), but that's a vast minority of clothing. I was more thinking about Zara type stores where most people's clothes come from.
To my knowledge, most thrifted pieces (though that may depend on where you live to be fair) are donated, not purchased, and so the person who sells to the thrift shop doesn't make a profit, and since those donations often happen years after the clothes were bought, there's no way the seller would have planned to make some sort of profit when purchasing the good (as opposed to a car or a household appliance).
I think the best critique of thrift shops is that simple presence of thrift shops motivates people to buy excess clothing (especially from very cheap brands like Shein) knowing they could get rid of them "ethically" (as they don't know or don't care that most of these clothes will be sent straight to the garbage). Plus, resale plateforms like vinted might encourage mindless consumption since it gives an "easy out" with the clothes, or resellers (I think resale plateform are a bigger environmental problem than thrift shops most of the time).