Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
So what do you eat then?
Applying ethics isn't saying that it's unethical.
I'm making this distinction because the post he's replying to said they "only applied ethics to their equals or betters", which is appalling: it's not even concluding that something bad is ethical, it was just outright denying that ethics even applied to "lesser beings".
Regarding your point, I think it's widely consensual that killing for sustenance, if no other choices exist, is ethical - even vegans agree with this, and by nature, they don't tend to agree with much (haha joke, calm down vegans!).
Where it gets more debatable is killing animals, who are very much capable of suffering and do possess a measure of self awareness and intelligence, when alternatives exist.
Makes sense, misunderstood you there.
Since "veganism" is the rejection of exploitation of animals by Man, I'm not sure most vegans would say it's ethical even when there's no other option, but they probably wouldn't judge either way.
It is the rejection of exploitation of animals as far as is possible and practicable, as per the vegan society's definition.
I'm sure individual opinions can differ and that others might hold more restrictive views, but like you said, in extreme circumstances people would probably not judge, we're in agreement 🤝
I'm vegan. Even if you argue that plants can suffer - it's the least amount of suffering I can cause without starving myself.
Also "applying ethics" does not mean it's automatically unethical - just that I think about it beforehand instead of categorically thinking "it's okay because I'm something better".
Dead things.