this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
87 points (76.0% liked)
VeganDE
1523 readers
1 users here now
community is read-only! moved to other instance:
https://discuss.tchncs.de/c/vegande
as a true German-speaking vegan you might also be interested in the German-speaking vegan circle-jerk:
https://discuss.tchncs.de/c/kreisvegs
old community info:
Deutschsprachige Veganys
bitte beachten:
- freundlich sein
- evidenzbasiert: keine tollkühnen Behauptungen ohne Datengrundlage. im Zweifel Quelle(n) mit angeben
- konstruktiv (kein "darauf erstmal ein Steak")
- Inhalte mit NSFW markieren, wenn sie Gewalt an Tieren zeigen
- beim Posten von Links den original Linktitel als Titel verwenden
- Dampf ablassen eher in kreisvegs
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why stop there, we could probably eradicate life on earth completely, ending all suffering?
Jokes aside, you're using the word argument and claim it's not reasonable, but I fail to see "the vegan argument" in your comment, whatever this is. The goal to reduce (needless) suffering of animals is merely a stance.
Veganism is a compromise, nothing more, nothing less. Vegans still have a will to live like most sentient beings, and to a degree that always includes weighing opposing interests. To give an example, hardly any vegan will argue that we shouldn't use non-vegan medicine if there's no plant-based alternative.
The question is where to draw the line. One could come to the conclusion that some suffering of animals is needless, e.g. if the only purpose is to give one a cheap, delicious meal.
If you're really interested in learning about logical arguments in favor of reducing animal suffering, there's a bunch of philosophers who worked on that, Peter Singer comes to mind.
I do wonder, though, why do you think it's reasonable to put importance on humanity or its future at all? Might as well just put importance on oneself, no?
Sure, compromises that "depend on where you place your morals".
The meme here is trying to superficially tackle a topic that's complex, projecting to the animal by "talking" to it with the intent of triggering empathy and causing a natural emotional reaction.
Exactly.
I do believe that the only reason we give importance to "humanity" is because it happens to be what's interesting for our own importance on "oneselves" as individuals.
Do you think that's unreasonable?
I do genuinely love other people, and I do so for egotistic reasons. Because they mean a lot TO ME. My family and friends are a huge part of MY world, of what I am. They can give me strength when I need it. A strong group makes ME strong, so I wanna give them strength when they need it too. Making them happy ends up making ME happy. And that applies (to a lesser/more abstract extent) to the community around me. It's in MY interest to have the most welcoming and charitable society. So I try to be charitable to help make it a charitable society since that is what's of interest to ME.
We have evolved as "pack" animals like that for a reason. If someone tells me they are freely acting in detriment to their own interest/satisfaction, then I would not trust that person... either they are lying to me or they are lying to themselves and they actually get some form of personal satisfaction/benefit from those actions.
If people did not deeply place importance on themselves first, then that would lead to sacrificing themselves for a perceived notion they have of what might be of interest to others... that's essentially what hardcore Christians preach (even if they don't practice it): to endure suffering for the sake of others. Imho, if everyone did that, then everyone would have to endure suffering... and because it's impossible to really be 100% sure of what others really need (we are not mind readers) not only is it inefficient to base your life in what you think others need, but it might even be counterproductive, it might even lead to a never ending cycle of guilt. And even the Christians had to think of a reward in the "afterlife" in order to sound convincing at all... just so that they can actually try and convince their own animal brains that the sacrifice isn't against their own benefit...
I'm not sure what you mean here.
If you are asking me: "when do you think veganism makes a good case?" then I would say: when it makes the point that if we don't switch our diet we would end up destroying ourselves, since our current diet does not seem to be sustainable long term for our environment.
Oh, I'll have to admit, for some reason I didn't consider the meme when interpreting your comment, thought you were just answering to the title of the post.
Personally, I think that a charitable society should strive towards being compassionate to all sentient beings. It's understandable and even necessary to our survival that we put ourselves first, but we're at a point where we could easily diminish a huge chunk of pain and suffering from animals just with the mild inconvenience of changing our eating habits. That's one of the better points the meme makes, the drawback isn't some unacceptable sacrifice.
That's a great argument to go plant-based, but veganism, by definition, is about reducing animal exploitation "as far as possible and practicable" (according to the vegan society who invented the term). Note that there's leeway for compromise.