Ethical Veganism is Consistent with Everyday Ethics

[DPMartin]

I have posted here in Applied Ethics because veganism is exactly that, the application of ethics into everyday behaviours. Hopefully this is a good place for such a discussion.

I want to offer an explanation of ethical veganism. Ethical veganism is variously described as a philosophy and a lifestyle. I don't think it is particularly either, though of course people adopting veganism will choose to act in certain ways according to some guiding principles. However, as best I can tell, veganism is an idea. The idea is that we extend certain ethical principles of moral consideration to include other species.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes in 30 articles to formalise certain ethical principles into a set of "rights". These rights are declarations about how each human being deserves to be treated. These rights recognise the inherent value of each person regardless of background, status or beliefs.

The idea of veganism is that we owe a duty to other species to recognise their inherent value in a similar fashion whenever we can. As other species cannot participate in human civic society, it doesn't make sense to believe that most of our human rights may similarly apply to other species. However, three of them could. These are Articles 3-5.

Abstracting from those articles, I suggest that ethical veganism proposes that other species be treated as though they have these rights:

• The right to life and liberty (that is, to be in charge of their own lives and not to be exploited)

• The right not to be held in slavery or servitude (that is, not to be owned and used as a commodity)

• The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (that is, not to be harmed unnecessarily)

As human rights are often usefully protected in law, most people in modern societies respect these fundamental rights of other people. This is not the case for other animals. Because of this, ethical vegans are simply people who choose to behave as though these rights are protected in law.

That's it.

Conceiving of veganism in this way makes it very easy to work out what to do. It also means that how any individual wants to behave accordingly is, in the end, entirely up to them. But if they act in good faith, they will aim to treat other species very much as they treat other people in regard to these three fundamental rights. There may be empirical matters involved when working what's best to do. For example, is a particular species sentient such that we owe it this consideration? By and large, making these decisions will entail gathering knowledge about such matters and making appropriate choices.

It should be clear from this that there really is no such thing as a "vegan". Instead, all there can be are people whose choices and actions fall somewhere on a continuum from restricting such considerations to only humans to those who offer full consideration to other sentient species.

one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue. Some jerkoffs try to apply their self-righteousness to the Bible but God’s covenant (agreement) with Noah and his children (meaning us) its ok the eat just about anything that moves.

When 'you' say, "it's okay to eat just about anything that moves", here, what 'moving things' have 'you' decided should not be eaten, in 'your' self-righteous diet?

As far as pork or clean and unclean or some other religious right, that is something they agree to therefore it’s a matter of ethics if one agrees and then disregards what he has agreed to deceiving those in the agreement. Then ethics or morals are in play, but that could apply to anything one agrees to, not some self-righteous diet.

did you read the posting at all? I’d say you've got it bass-ackwards

[Graeme M]

It is on subject, isn’t it?

Not really, ethical veganism isn't a diet. The diet is a consequence of the ethics. The post is meant to identify the underlying ethical principles and explain what being "vegan" means (I put vegan here in quotes because I don't really think the average person needs to be vegan or that the term is even relevant).

If you wanted to discuss the ethical principles as they apply under veganism and whether they can or should be applied to our relationship with other species, then yes, we can. But I'm not really wanting to talk about what people eat.

[Age]

one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue. Some jerkoffs try to apply their self-righteousness to the Bible but God’s covenant (agreement) with Noah and his children (meaning us) its ok the eat just about anything that moves.

When 'you' say, "it's okay to eat just about anything that moves", here, what 'moving things' have 'you' decided should not be eaten, in 'your' self-righteous diet?

As far as pork or clean and unclean or some other religious right, that is something they agree to therefore it’s a matter of ethics if one agrees and then disregards what he has agreed to deceiving those in the agreement. Then ethics or morals are in play, but that could apply to anything one agrees to, not some self-righteous diet.

did you read the posting at all?

Yes.

I’d say you've got it bass-ackwards

I have just posed a question to you for CLARIFICATION, in regards to what you wrote, I asked the question from a Truly OPEN perspective with NO preconceptions so asked with NO view NOR position AT ALL, and somehow you have concluded that I have got 'it' backwards.

Here is MORE PROOF of how these people, back then, would look at 'things' from their OWN views or BELIEFS ONLY, and so were absolutely CLOSED and BLINDED to what was ACTUALLY happening around them.

I will, AGAIN, suggest that you just read the question posed only, answer it absolutely Honestly, and do NOT ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, including what I MIGHT be saying or meaning, at ANY time throughout that VERY SIMPLE and EASY process. That way you could NEVER be Wrong, like you are here.

[Age]

xxx

[DPMartin]

It is on subject, isn’t it?

Not really, ethical veganism isn't a diet. The diet is a consequence of the ethics. The post is meant to identify the underlying ethical principles and explain what being "vegan" means (I put vegan here in quotes because I don't really think the average person needs to be vegan or that the term is even relevant).

If you wanted to discuss the ethical principles as they apply under veganism and whether they can or should be applied to our relationship with other species, then yes, we can. But I'm not really wanting to talk about what people eat.

veganism is about what people eat; you can't change that though you may try. one's reasons personal or a group due to some agreed reasons such as a religion or philosophy and call it veganism. it doesn’t matter, it’s a diet that is exercised for what ever reason. People eat any diet for reasons, any reason qualifies. A kosher diet is eaten for reasons or fast-food diet or Atkins or whatever. But this holier than thou crap because of some preserved relationship with flesh one has that others don’t, is nauseating to say the least.

[Graeme M]

veganism is about what people eat; you can't change that though you may try. one's reasons personal or a group due to some agreed reasons such as a religion or philosophy and call it veganism. it doesn’t matter, it’s a diet that is exercised for what ever reason. People eat any diet for reasons, any reason qualifies. A kosher diet is eaten for reasons or fast-food diet or Atkins or whatever. But this holier than thou crap because of some preserved relationship with flesh one has that others don’t, is nauseating to say the least.

OK, you aren't inclined to discuss the topic of the post. That's fine, just say so instead of the deflection and diversion.

[DPMartin]

veganism is about what people eat; you can't change that though you may try. one's reasons personal or a group due to some agreed reasons such as a religion or philosophy and call it veganism. it doesn’t matter, it’s a diet that is exercised for what ever reason. People eat any diet for reasons, any reason qualifies. A kosher diet is eaten for reasons or fast-food diet or Atkins or whatever. But this holier than thou crap because of some preserved relationship with flesh one has that others don’t, is nauseating to say the least.

OK, you aren't inclined to discuss the topic of the post. That's fine, just say so instead of the deflection and diversion.

who are you to tell others what to say on a public forum. what are you the subject according to you police, WOW

[Graeme M]

who are you to tell others what to say on a public forum. what are you the subject according to you police, WOW

Nowhere have I told you what to say, what I said instead is that I am not going to talk with you given you haven't a clue about the topic and have no interest in finding out. Thanks for your input.

[FlashDangerpants]

one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue.

If you become a racist cannibal who only eats the French, it would be difficult to do so without at least one immoral choice.

[DPMartin]

one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue.

If you become a racist cannibal who only eats the French, it would be difficult to do so without at least one immoral choice.

how is that? is cannibalism intrinsically evil because you say so? And if I was a racist cannable, how can it be immoral seeing that is what I have agreed to with my racist cannable friends, I fulfill accordingly. What is moral for the racist cabalist is evil in your judgement, and what is moral in what you agree to, is evil in the cabalist’s. why only French? a little Italian never hurt anyone?

[FlashDangerpants]

one's preferences to diet isn't an issue of ethics though some morons try to make it a self-righteous issue.

If you become a racist cannibal who only eats the French, it would be difficult to do so without at least one immoral choice.

how is that? is cannibalism intrinsically evil because you say so? And if I was a racist cannable, how can it be immoral seeing that is what I have agreed to with my racist cannable friends, I fulfill accordingly. What is moral for the racist cabalist is evil in your judgement, and what is moral in what you agree to, is evil in the cabalist’s. why only French? a little Italian never hurt anyone?

Yeah, I was just mocking you gently for going in waaaay too hot and heavy on that other dude.

If you're planning to turn that into an essay on hermeneutic moral fictionalism or something then, I guess, sure, but it's a bit of sledgehammer vs walnut situation.

[popeye1945]

All Vegans are child molesters.

[Agent Smith]

Chocolate, yummy!!

Oh you poor devil! You don't know do you?

What's there to know here? Chocolate, pop in mouth, yum yum!!

We must go to ... ?

Jingle bells, jingle bells ... mmmmmm ...soooo gooood, so so good!

Never mind! Irma dear, bring the atlas, the special one.

Yes ma'am. Right away.