3 ms·
> I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals. I understand what you mean by violence and I don't want to co
by acituan 5y ago
> I urge everyone to at least _try_ Beyond Burgers, is they require no violence against animals.
I understand what you mean by violence and I don't want to come across as a stickler just for sport, but if we are taking a hard ethical stance based on principles we need to be precise with categories. Two of which is most important;
1. category of animals include humans
2. category of violence include any suffering inflicted knowingly e.g. being overworked in a sweatshop, psychological violence etc.
If we accept above categories, our supply chain, not only for food but for pretty much everything we consume, unfortunately do incur violence on humans. As such, if someone takes a principle on requiring no violence against animals, they must also be concerned with everything they consume or use, not only what they eat. I am not saying they shouldn't not eat meat if they didn't do the other, I am saying they shouldn't claim a position from principle.
In fact if they made either these two arguments they would be perfectly consistent; argument of convenience "not eating meat is more convenient than not using an iPhone", or argument of priority "not requiring violence against other animals is more important to me than humans". But still they couldn't occupy a principled stance of no violence against animals.
- __jem 5y agoi don’t understand why you think this is a huge gotcha. most vegans are oriented around harm reduction, not absolute minimization. otherwise, they’d just kill themselves. there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, etc. either way, the causal chain between me and the rotisserie chicken is far shorter than between me and the tiny bit of cobalt in my iphone.
- alentist 5y ago> there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism What do you mean by that?
- imtringued 5y agoHe means that nothing should exist, because life means death, existence means suffering. I honestly don't see the relation to capitalism because consumption is literally just spending for utility and consumption can be absolutely anything, it can be sustainable or not.
- dqv 5y agoIt's usually a refrain that comes as a leftist critique of liberals. Generally liberals believe that more thoughtful consumption can solve ills of capitalism while leftists do not. The same idea gets recycled without the critique to mean "nothing you do will reduce the harm you intend to reduce so you're doing that for no reason."
- acituan 5y ago> i don’t understand why you think this is a huge gotcha ... most vegans are oriented around harm reduction Avoiding a true scotsman fallacy aside, the OP was strongly centering their argument on "no violence against animals". If you deem pointing that out a gotcha, so be it. > either way, the causal chain between me and the rotisserie chicken is far shorter than between me and the tiny bit of cobalt in my iphone. I think assuming that the length of the causal chain lightens one's responsibility is a fallacy. By that token a drone operator would have less ethical responsibility than a boots-on-ground marine, a stockholder would be less culpable than a laborer for the consequences of market activity, and consumers would always be the most innocent as by definition they are the end users of any causality chain. People's tendency for going after only what is most salient creates the most difficult ethical problems.