Hello world

[Anon1998]

Greetings

First things first, I must admit that I live in the same house as @DaBankasDaBonuses and @GeorgeNorge. I have been observing this recent vegan feud between them from afar, but I have now decided to enter the fray... I should add I am approaching this topic with an open mind and don’t agree necessarily agree with my friends perspectives ^

Second, I have been vegan on/off for the past 2-3 years. I appreciate the environmental/health benefits of said diet, but I am slightly confused about the ethics. I feel as though if I had a stronger moral foundation for my diet it would me to convince others, so I have two questions for you all:

Why is it wrong to let an animal live a net positive life (whereby, it wouldn’t otherwise exist e.g. upland sheep farming) and then kill it as painlessly as possible for food?

I currently understand veganism as a virtue, rather than a moral ought. Can someone explain why one should be obligated to go vegan (In the same way that giving money to charity is virtuous but not necessarily a moral obligation)?

I would appreciate any arguments/ideas you have.

[GeorgeNorge]

but I have now decided to enter the fray

About bloody time!

[Red]

Greetings, Anon.

Why is it wrong to let an animal live a net positive life (whereby, it wouldn’t otherwise exist e.g. upland sheep farming) and then kill it as painlessly as possible for food?

That's an interesting question. This thread might be good to start:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2583&p=26380

A fulfilled life for a cow or a sheep is MUCH different than a fulfilled life for a human; Having more sheep and cows around doesn't bring any more value to the world, while having a human being around can contribute more to the economy and society. If we're fine with raising and killing animals "painlessly" would it be wrong to do the same to humans, even though they have more moral value? In other words, if we had a farm that raised humans to live good lives until they're 30, is that still ethical? Why so? In the case of both of these farms, they'd still rely on the unethical act of murdering a being that doesn't want to die (especially if they've lived a good life).

There are many other factors to consider here. Animal agriculture is one of the main drivers of climate change (especially when farming cows and sheep), and poses issues for food security, antibiotic resistance, and of course, meat consumption is bad for our health, leading to even more unnecessary loss of human life.

Having more humane farms around is not sustainable, especially considering how they're much less efficient than factory farms, (they use MUCH more land) and it isn't a good idea to have MORE people rely on this type of meat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

I currently understand veganism as a virtue, rather than a moral ought. Can someone explain why one should be obligated to go vegan (In the same way that giving money to charity is virtuous but not necessarily a moral obligation)?

Is not murdering for no reason a virtue, or a moral ought? We ought to be vegan because it's avoiding unnecessary harm; If there is no good moral reason not to be (and plenty of good moral reasons TO be) then we ought to be vegan, due to the low effort for such high impact.

As far as charity is concerned, I think donating money you don't need to those who do need money is an obligation, since hoarding that money when you can easily donate it is selfish (and hence, immoral). It also applies to voting or volunteering your time; Doing nothing when you can do something is what allows evil to continue.

[Jebus]

First things first, I must admit that I live in the same house as @DaBankasDaBonuses and @GeorgeNorge.

Welcome Anon. Are you students?

I have been observing this recent vegan feud between them from afar, but I have now decided to enter the fray...

Great that you are not shying away. Anyone who finds vegan debates annoying better get used to them. They will likely become plentiful in the years and decades to come.

Second, I have been vegan on/off for the past 2-3 years. I appreciate the environmental/health benefits of said diet, but I am slightly confused about the ethics.

In that case you have never been vegan. You have dabbled with a plant based diet, which is great, but you shouldn't consider yourself vegan until you banish leather, silk, palm oil, products tested on animals etc.

Why is it wrong to let an animal live a net positive life (whereby, it wouldn’t otherwise exist e.g. upland sheep farming) and then kill it as painlessly as possible for food?

If that happens, it must be extremely rare. At least 99.9999% of farm animals likely live horrible lives. However, this is not one but several actions and it needs to be broken down as follows:

1. Purposely impregnating an animal.

Morally wrong. Being pregnant is never pleasant and one should also consider the negative environmental impact of the offspring.

2. Caring for an animal during a lifetime (I realize this can be broken down into several actions but I am grouping them into one for sake of simplicity).

Morally good.

3. Killing the animal.

Morally horrendous, especially since the animal is enjoying a happy life and doesn't want to die.

Can someone explain why one should be obligated to go vegan (In the same way that giving money to charity is virtuous but not necessarily a moral obligation)?

I consider both being obligations, unless the actor in question is a charity case himself.

[GeorgeNorge]

That's an interesting question. This thread might be good to start:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2583&p=26380

Thanks for sharing that, the article that OP of that thread shared I think perfectly encapsulates my confusion. I did read the following discussion however there's a couple of things I'm not sure were addressed/that I would be grateful for further explanation on:

I'm still somewhat confused about the case where the animals live net positive lives so sorry someone might have to really spell this out for me. To help I'll try to clarify out what my mind keeps going back to:

• In the case where the life in question can be reasonably assured to be net positive, it's better to exist than to not exist
• All else being the same more of these lives is better than fewer as it's more positive sentient life
• If a potential method of bringing this life into existance necessitates ending the life prematurely, it's a shame but it's not a reason not to do it as if the alternative is for the life to never exist, which is worse
• Therefore there's nothing inherently wrong from the perspective of the animals in practicing this
• What I'm asking basically is, is there a reason why this is inherently wrong, or is it only wrong because of the externalities e.g. the environmental impact etc?

Also in the above mentioned thread @brimstoneSalad made the point about space being a zero sum game, but presumably this only applies to some animals, as with upland sheep like @Anon1998 mentioned (or fish?!) the space they exist in isn't really useable for humans?

Welcome Anon. Are you students?

We're recent graduates, 2 engineers and one geographer

If that happens, it must be extremely rare. At least 99.9999% of farm animals likely live horrible lives.

I may just be showing my ignorance about farming practices here but whenever I go for a wander in the countryside and see cows/sheep in the fields, or see outdoor pigs, I think are these animals not living lives fairly similar to what they would get in the wild whilst in the fields? And assuming that they enjoy this existance and that whatever time they spend not in the fields is not sufficiently bad so as to outweight their good time, then have these animals not lived a net positive existance?

[Jebus]

I may just be showing my ignorance about farming practices here but whenever I go for a wander in the countryside and see cows/sheep in the fields, or see outdoor pigs, I think are these animals not living lives fairly similar to what they would get in the wild whilst in the fields? And assuming that they enjoy this existance and that whatever time they spend not in the fields is not sufficiently bad so as to outweight their good time, then have these animals not lived a net positive existance?

More than 99% of the animals humans eat come from factory farms so the ones you see on the fields are the lucky minority. There is not enough room to keep all these billions in animals on the fields, and if even if we could, the environmental toll would be disastrous.

For the sake of argument let's ignore all the external factors (environment, human slaughter stress etc.) and assume an animal gets to spend most of her time outdoors on a large enough field, would it be a net positive life?

I really doubt it. An animal who is farmed to be eaten will have a short life. She would live a short life and would frequently lose friends and family members as they are taken away to be slaughtered. She would have a life with little variety apart from uncomfortable weather fluctuations (rain, cold etc.)

[Red]

[*] In the case where the life in question can be reasonably assured to be net positive, it's better to exist than to not exist
[*] All else being the same more of these lives is better than fewer as it's more positive sentient life

The problem is that these animals don't exist in a vacuum. Keeping more animals around, even if life for them is a "net positive" (whatever is meant by that) brings issues of sustainability to the world (food security, climate change, etc.), not to mention the issue of land use as we've explained, and on humane farms it's even LESS sustainable.

There could be debate as to whether it's more ethical to kill an animal that lived on a factory farm compared to an animal that lived humanely. The former lived a life of pain and misery and will have that cut short, compared to the latter that lived a good, happy life that had that ended. Would you rather have your life of pain be ended, or your life of happiness be ended? Obviously both are evil, but which is worse? I'm not really sure what the answer would be.

[*] If a potential method of bringing this life into existance necessitates ending the life prematurely, it's a shame but it's not a reason not to do it as if the alternative is for the life to never exist, which is worse

Non-existence isn't a bad thing in and of itself, nor is it a good thing. It's just nothing.

[*] Therefore there's nothing inherently wrong from the perspective of the animals in practicing this

How would you know? They don't know that they're going to be killed, nor are they able of making analyses like that.

What I'm asking basically is, is there a reason why this is inherently wrong, or is it only wrong because of the externalities e.g. the environmental impact etc?

It's unethical on both accounts.

Also in the above mentioned thread @brimstoneSalad made the point about space being a zero sum game, but presumably this only applies to some animals, as with upland sheep like @Anon1998 mentioned (or fish?!) the space they exist in isn't really useable for humans?

There's only so much land available on earth, and needing more for these humanely raised animals would inevitably require more land use, and thus more deforestation (which accelerates climate change), especially given the rising population.

[brimstoneSalad]

Greetings

First things first, I must admit that I live in the same house as @DaBankasDaBonuses and @GeorgeNorge. I have been observing this recent vegan feud between them from afar, but I have now decided to enter the fray... I should add I am approaching this topic with an open mind and don’t agree necessarily agree with my friends perspectives ^

Welcome! Interesting case, we haven't had so many people who know each other on here for a while.

Second, I have been vegan on/off for the past 2-3 years. I appreciate the environmental/health benefits of said diet, but I am slightly confused about the ethics. I feel as though if I had a stronger moral foundation for my diet it would me to convince others, so I have two questions for you all:

Certainly, but keep in mind that the environmental argument IS a moral argument if you consider things like murdering people wrong, because climate change is causing serious havoc and it's only going to get worse.
https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/ ... change/en/
Over 150,000 deaths every single year already, and it will reach around a quarter million or more a year in the next decade.

Pandemics are also a serious concern for animal agriculture not accounted for in that.

It's entirely possible to avoid animal agriculture, so the contribution to climate change and pandemics that it represents is an optional one -- which is to say anybody eating animal products is choosing their taste pleasure over the wellbeing and lives of other human beings.

You might only be responsible for 1/100th of a human death, but does that shared culpability change things morally?
Not much. A little more on that here: wiki/index.php/Individual_Responsibility
but I'm happy to answer questions, and that article could benefit from expansion.

I currently understand veganism as a virtue, rather than a moral ought. Can someone explain why one should be obligated to go vegan (In the same way that giving money to charity is virtuous but not necessarily a moral obligation)?

Virtues and obligations are more of a false dichotomy. People imagine a magical line that separates the two somehow.
It's more of a spectrum defined by the effort something takes relative to the payoff.

Going vegan is pretty easy, going vegetarian is even easier, and the payoff for both is comparably large. You may also experience personal benefits.
Donating tens of thousands to charity or a kidney to maybe safe a life is much less easy. These will also likely harm your own wellbeing much more.