Hi /c/vegan,
I’m a baby “vegan”, just started about a month ago. I started watching the YouTuber MicTheVegan as my main influence.
I’ve been really working on and developing my belief system. The issue is, my belief system so far, while it is like 97% consistent with veganism, does have some conflicts with veganism, and I think some people would say that I can’t call myself a vegan because of that.
Basically, I think it’s too broad to simply lump all animals into one category and say that any at all exploitation of them is wrong. Instead, I like taking a very scientific approach about what we know about different animals’ cognitive and emotional abilities, and perhaps prioritize different groups of animals differently.
While I’m still developing my belief systems, here’s a basic rundown of it:
Tier 1: Primates, cetaceans (whales, dolphins), elephants, certain bird species (corvids, parrots), octopuses
These animals are highly intelligent and should never be exploited for any manner. They should not be kept as pets or in zoos (I suppose exceptions for if an animal is injured beyond repair).
Tier 2: Domesticated mammals (dogs, cats), farm animals (pigs, cows), other bird species, certain fish species (cleaner wrasse, groupers)
The only difference between these animals and tier 1 animals, is that I believe they can be kept in captivity (pets or in zoos). However, they need to be kept up to really high standards. They need a lot of space and a lot of enrichment. Yes, I currently believe that most people who keep dogs as pets do not treat them well enough, but I also believe that if you do treat them well that it is okay.
Tier 3: Reptiles, amphibians, remaining fish species.
The only difference between these animals and tier 2 animals is that I think the standard for keeping them in captivity can be slightly lowered. I say this as a reptile lover, I have a couple lizards as pets. These animals still need very high standards for treatment, but I believe it’s okay to keep them in “cages” (really terrariums and aquariums). Basically, the science we have says that these animals just don’t need the same level as enrichment. Some lizards will literally sit in one spot for days. And yes, I highly believe that these animals are abused in reality. Many people keep these animals in far too small enclosures, among other problems.
The discussion of whether or not it’s okay to breed these animals is highly nuanced, but I know with reptiles and amphibians, they really don’t have any connection to their offspring so I don’t think it’s unethical to separate them. Some reptiles who lay eggs will even lay eggs regardless of if they are fertilized or not. I haven’t made my mind up about it, but I think you could make an argument that you could ethically breed reptiles, maybe even argue that allowing them to breed let’s them live a more natural life.
Tier 4: Insects, arachnids
Okay this is where a lot of vegans will lose me. These animals should absolutely never be tortured, but I personally think that they can be ethically farmed and consumed. I think these animals have simple enough brains that their quality of life when in a farmed environment really isn’t that much different than their natural lives. I personally don’t eat bugs, but I feed them to my lizards. That being said, I still think they deserve a decent amount of space, some enrichment, and a cruelty free life up until their death.
Tier 5: Bivalves (clams, mussels), annelids (earthworms), sponges.
Once again will get some hate for it, but these animals I also believe can be farmed and with even less consideration than the tier 4 animals. I don’t really think these animals need any laws protecting them. They don’t have central nervous systems.
Animal I’m not sure about: Crustaceans (somewhere between tier 3 and tier 4), Many fish species need more research (but I do standby that some fish, like carp and goldfish, belong in my tier 3).
I’m curious what other vegan’s thoughts are about this. Can I not call myself a vegan because of this?
I find it kind of funny that you’re sitting there and arbitrarily deciding the rights of different species based on what brain you think they have. The truth is, at this point in time, no one knows to an exact science how any species thinks, or feels for that matter regarding pain, and so the idea that you’re taking a scientific approach here should be met with skepticism at best.
I don’t really understand what’s so hard to understand about “cause no animal harm”. The act of segregating species and giving different ones different rights because you maybe feel like eating insects isn’t any different to why people aren’t vegan today. I mean look at how religion justifies eating fish when no other meat should be eaten for example.
Intellect is a red herring.
Jeremy Bentham understood this 200 years ago: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
As a thought experiment, ask yourself if you would be happy to harm a mentally-disabled human being simply because of their cognitive deficiency.
There’s a large gap between mentally-disabled human and a worm, for example. There’s also humans literally born without a brain.
Intellect is correlated with ability to suffer. For example, a human can experience ongoing trauma from something that happened to them in the past, but that’s likely not possible for creatures with low intelligence. Also, you have to consider if reacting to impulses is the same as feeling pain. If they aren’t complex enough for it to be pain, than just a reaction to something isn’t necessarily suffering.
For example, a human can experience ongoing trauma from something that happened to them in the past, but that’s likely not possible for creatures with low intelligence.
For context, many people did (and still do) make exactly the same case for babies, often performing painful surgical procedures on them with no kind of anaesthetic. Nevertheless…
Caterpillars that are exposed to a stimuli shortly before pain is inflicted on them still react negatively to the stimuli after becoming butterflies.
While the original goal was to see how much of a caterpillar was still in a butterfly, the result was a basic trauma response; something in the past hurt them and it now induces fear.
Sure, maybe they don’t get PTSD from seeing other caterpillars maimed for science, but simple trauma is still trauma.
Also, you have to consider if reacting to impulses is the same as feeling pain. If they aren’t complex enough for it to be pain, than just a reaction to something isn’t necessarily suffering.
Do you have any basis for this beyond it being personally convient? Pain is essential for survival, especially without intelligence. It plays a greater role than even vision or hearing, both of which the creatures you’re talking about clearly have.
Is it morally justified to inflict pain and fear on a creature that outwardly reacts to it, simply because it can’t be proven its “true” pain and fear inside their minds, according to your arbitrary standard?
Asserting “their pain is not like our pain” without actual proof, it’s equally likely that they physical pain beyond what humans are capable of experiencing.
But that’s never proposed, likely because it makes things less morally convient.
Veganism is not eating animal products. That’s it. It’s not a religion, so believe what you want.
If you want to be a non-vegan conscientious eater with a diet based on your internal ethics, please do. You don’t need a title.
That said, I’m vegetarian, so I’m probably wrong
Almost 25 years vegan here. I don’t really gaf about bugs. I murder ants by the thousand when they invade my house, I slap mosquitos without remorse… but I will save spiders from the bath.
Might wanna be careful about all that bug murder, seems there is a limit if you wanna go to heaven.
The only animals that deserve to be in a lower tier are mosquitos and wasps.
To be honest a lot of this stuff is pretty easily answered and has been discussed ad nauseum in spaces like /r/vegan. This is also not a great space to ask this question of vegans, as a lot of carnists (yes that includes vegetarians) come here to argue against veganism and upvote answers they agree with but that practicing ethical vegans are likely to reject. You are likely to get better answers from vegans in other spaces.
In terms of your above post there is nothing scientific in what you’ve described. It appears you are using a veneer of science to avoid adopting views you disagree with. To be frank there is a lack of research on almost all animals in terms of their sentience, intelligence and capacity to suffer, presumably due to the carnist nature of society. There is also the unavoidable philosophical problem of other minds, which we are unlikely to be able to readily solve with science; we will never truly be able to determine the experience of another non-homo sapien creature and can only work through analogy to the experience of homo sapiens.
The above notwithstanding, even if some creatures are more “intelligent” in some ways than other creatures, how does this impact their entitlement to the bare minimum of moral consideration, i.e. freedom from intentional harm and exploitation? How have you determined that each “tier” that you have created only deserves the rights you have designated? The assignment and exclusion of moral consideration is the province of philosophy and politics, not science. There are certain classes of humans who are alive, and through severe disability or illness, have intelligence arguably lesser than many of the animals listed above in your lower tiers. Would you therefore exclude them from moral consideration? Of course not, and this is why intelligence is irrelevant to moral consideration - it is not a morally relevant characteristic.
The morally relevant characteristic that stands philosophical rigour to determine if moral consideration should be granted is a capacity to suffer. It is pretty clear that all of the animals listed, apart perhaps from tier 5, have this, so it makes sense for these animals to have moral consideration.
You have also completely ignored the well established link between commodification and carnism in the above, which is a key reason, as to why exploitation and commodification of animals is ethically unacceptable and should be eschewed - the commodification of animals, or relegation of them to zoe, is fundamentally how we as a society and as individuals justify their ongoing torture, mistreatment and slaughter in most ways throughout society. This is without even going into other issues regarding exploitation, such as an inability for an animal to provide meaningful consent, and respect for bodily autonomy that we grant other individuals, regardless of intelligence.
This doesn’t mean that vegans would generally be opposed to adopting animals to care for them, or opening sanctuaries - most people I have encountered and literature I have read understand that we operate within the internal logic of a carnist society, and that while it is unethical to engage in the support of further breeding, it is ethical to care for adopted animals (or animals you had prior to going vegan) that have already been brought into existence through this system.
In terms of your tier 5, due to the lack of research here, the problem of other minds, and the lack of necessity here for people to engage in the exploitation or harm of these creatures, I am of the view that the default position should be erring on the side of caution.
If you’re vegan enough to affect your market decisions, welcome to the making things better club.
Nobody is the vegan police checking to see who’s doing the best. Decide why you want to be vegan or not and then live accordingly.
