My concern is that many vegans who are deeply concerned about the exploitation of animals are ignoring the exploitation of people at the same time which feels deeply hypocritical, if not performative.
If you’re refusing to raise chickens because you feel it’s exploitative, but you are happily buying bulk produce from a chain grocery store in the USA, you are contributing directly to the exploitation of migrant workers.
I would rather exploit a chicken than a human. If I can raise a chicken easily but not grow the equivalent source of protein myself (soy etc) and would have to rely on the grocery chain or post exorbitant prices at local farmers markets, I’m sorry, but I’m going to raise the chicken for eggs.
I’m vegan specifically because the flesh trade involves exploitation of human workers. Killing those day old male baby chicks has a psychological toll on the humans that are forced to do it for their paycheck.
One thing is a system that depends on exploitation. These systems should be abolished, like exploiting animals for their flesh or secretions.
Another completely different thing is a system that contains exploitation. These should be improved, like underpaid/overworked employees.
There is no hypocrisy in that. It’s not a dichotomy where you need to exploit either an animal or an human. Just go vegan and also advocate for human rights.
As a consumer, I do not have a choice. I am presented with a reality right now: contribute to the exploitation of a human, or contribute to the exploitation of an animal.
The theory you are presenting is lovely but it does not reflect the experience I am actually living. I do not consider it morally acceptable to contribute to the exploitation of humans but not animals, simply because getting vegetables without exploiting migrants is something we could theoretically do one day.
Can you imagine sitting in front of a migrant and telling them “yeah, I mean, I know they’re treating you like shit, and I could help with that by not giving them money until they treat you better, but to do that I’d have to take eggs from a chicken, so I’m gonna give your oppressors my money and just be angry about it, okay?”
That just feels really wrong.
For the record, it’s problems like this that make me a moral relativist. For some people it is ethical to eat eggs. For others it is not. The calculus is complicated and I cannot get behind the idea of an absolute right or wrong.
so you eat eggs and meat and cheese exclusively to not exploit migrants farming the vegetables you eat?
what about going vegan and buying organic vegetables if you’re so concerned about human labor being exploited? I know I can’t afford it, but the least I can do I be vegan and abstain from unjustified and unnecessary animal cruelty, no?
This conversation was spawned from a question about home-raised livestock. My reply is specifically in that context. I would rather raise a chicken for it’s eggs and treat it as well as possible than put those same resources in the hands of exploitative grocers and produce providers.
It is far more feasible for an individual to raise one or two chickens for eggs than it is for them to farm the equivalent protein from vegan food sources.
As I originally said, my concern is with people who do not consider the downstream consequences of their decisions thoroughly and ignore or disregard the ways in which they contribute to human suffering while placing a high priority on animal suffering.
We all have limited options. Of course we should do what we can to eliminate suffering and exploitation in every way possible, both for humans and animals. But I have seen friends who went vegan gleefully buying soy products from Walmart even after being shown the option of raising a chicken at home and claiming a moral victory.
You say that as if migrant workers aren’t exploited to make animal products.
When you buy a meal, you have 2 options: contribute to animal exploitation (that probably contains human exploitation) or not.
If you know which companies exploit humans, it’s on you to denounce them publicly and not support them.
Until you can name these companies so you know what to avoid, you can be sure that any animal product you get is the result of animal exploitation (and probably human as well).
Why not compare to home crops, then? If the person has resources to produce the animal feed (so they can ensure there are no humans being exploited, right?), they surely can grow crops to directly eat.
Crops take dramatically more land, and labor, for one.
And it is absolutely feasible and not especially difficult to feed one or two chickens with responsibly sourced animal feed options at a reasonable price, compared to the cost and availability of responsibly sourced vegan protein.
(Chicken feed from a local farmer is drastically cheaper than human-consumable produce from the same source… Half the time you are literally just getting the leftovers from what they use for their own livestock)
It feels like you’re trying to move the goal posts on me.
Until now you were arguing that buying plants would incur in human exploitation. But now that I’ve argued for the least exploitative scenario, you came up with ‘responsibly sourced plant options at a reasonable price’.
So now we can get plants without exploiting immigrants, right?
Then there’s no need to exploit animals, simple as that
No. Please go reread the conversation again. I have always been discussing the relatively high cost of responsibly sourced vegan protein compared to raising one or two chickens for their eggs, which drives people who want to be vegan to purchase cheaper produce that involves exploiting humans. That has always been my concern. And that has always been what I’ve focused on. And saying that it is relatively easy to responsibly source chicken feed at a reasonable price compared to doing the same for human-consumable protein is perfectly consistent with my entire argument
You have just made an absolute statement of ideology that is disregarding rational debate. That is exactly what I have a problem with. You have decided on a specific ideology and nothing will change your mind, even when presented with reasonable explanations of why it may be flawed for some people. You appear to have edited your comment to add a “then” before the last sentence, or I misread.
I’m done with this conversation now. Thank you for remaining civil, at least. Have a great day/night.
My concern is that many vegans who are deeply concerned about the exploitation of animals are ignoring the exploitation of people at the same time which feels deeply hypocritical, if not performative.
If you’re refusing to raise chickens because you feel it’s exploitative, but you are happily buying bulk produce from a chain grocery store in the USA, you are contributing directly to the exploitation of migrant workers.
I would rather exploit a chicken than a human. If I can raise a chicken easily but not grow the equivalent source of protein myself (soy etc) and would have to rely on the grocery chain or post exorbitant prices at local farmers markets, I’m sorry, but I’m going to raise the chicken for eggs.
I’m vegan specifically because the flesh trade involves exploitation of human workers. Killing those day old male baby chicks has a psychological toll on the humans that are forced to do it for their paycheck.
One thing is a system that depends on exploitation. These systems should be abolished, like exploiting animals for their flesh or secretions.
Another completely different thing is a system that contains exploitation. These should be improved, like underpaid/overworked employees.
There is no hypocrisy in that. It’s not a dichotomy where you need to exploit either an animal or an human. Just go vegan and also advocate for human rights.
As a consumer, I do not have a choice. I am presented with a reality right now: contribute to the exploitation of a human, or contribute to the exploitation of an animal.
The theory you are presenting is lovely but it does not reflect the experience I am actually living. I do not consider it morally acceptable to contribute to the exploitation of humans but not animals, simply because getting vegetables without exploiting migrants is something we could theoretically do one day.
Can you imagine sitting in front of a migrant and telling them “yeah, I mean, I know they’re treating you like shit, and I could help with that by not giving them money until they treat you better, but to do that I’d have to take eggs from a chicken, so I’m gonna give your oppressors my money and just be angry about it, okay?”
That just feels really wrong.
For the record, it’s problems like this that make me a moral relativist. For some people it is ethical to eat eggs. For others it is not. The calculus is complicated and I cannot get behind the idea of an absolute right or wrong.
so you eat eggs and meat and cheese exclusively to not exploit migrants farming the vegetables you eat?
what about going vegan and buying organic vegetables if you’re so concerned about human labor being exploited? I know I can’t afford it, but the least I can do I be vegan and abstain from unjustified and unnecessary animal cruelty, no?
Everybody knows that animal feed comes from magical farms that never exploit humans.
Come on you vegan dummy, go get your B12 supplement. >!/s!<
So funny how when ‘vegan’ is mentioned, everybody is a homesteader.
This conversation was spawned from a question about home-raised livestock. My reply is specifically in that context. I would rather raise a chicken for it’s eggs and treat it as well as possible than put those same resources in the hands of exploitative grocers and produce providers.
It is far more feasible for an individual to raise one or two chickens for eggs than it is for them to farm the equivalent protein from vegan food sources.
As I originally said, my concern is with people who do not consider the downstream consequences of their decisions thoroughly and ignore or disregard the ways in which they contribute to human suffering while placing a high priority on animal suffering.
We all have limited options. Of course we should do what we can to eliminate suffering and exploitation in every way possible, both for humans and animals. But I have seen friends who went vegan gleefully buying soy products from Walmart even after being shown the option of raising a chicken at home and claiming a moral victory.
It bugs me 🤷♀️
You say that as if migrant workers aren’t exploited to make animal products.
When you buy a meal, you have 2 options: contribute to animal exploitation (that probably contains human exploitation) or not.
If you know which companies exploit humans, it’s on you to denounce them publicly and not support them.
Until you can name these companies so you know what to avoid, you can be sure that any animal product you get is the result of animal exploitation (and probably human as well).
We were specifically discussing the consumption of eggs from home-raised livestock so I’m not sure this reply is in context?
Why not compare to home crops, then? If the person has resources to produce the animal feed (so they can ensure there are no humans being exploited, right?), they surely can grow crops to directly eat.
Crops take dramatically more land, and labor, for one.
And it is absolutely feasible and not especially difficult to feed one or two chickens with responsibly sourced animal feed options at a reasonable price, compared to the cost and availability of responsibly sourced vegan protein.
(Chicken feed from a local farmer is drastically cheaper than human-consumable produce from the same source… Half the time you are literally just getting the leftovers from what they use for their own livestock)
It feels like you’re trying to move the goal posts on me.
Until now you were arguing that buying plants would incur in human exploitation. But now that I’ve argued for the least exploitative scenario, you came up with ‘responsibly sourced plant options at a reasonable price’.
So now we can get plants without exploiting immigrants, right?
Then there’s no need to exploit animals, simple as that
No. Please go reread the conversation again. I have always been discussing the relatively high cost of responsibly sourced vegan protein compared to raising one or two chickens for their eggs, which drives people who want to be vegan to purchase cheaper produce that involves exploiting humans. That has always been my concern. And that has always been what I’ve focused on. And saying that it is relatively easy to responsibly source chicken feed at a reasonable price compared to doing the same for human-consumable protein is perfectly consistent with my entire argument
You have just made an absolute statement of ideology that is disregarding rational debate. That is exactly what I have a problem with. You have decided on a specific ideology and nothing will change your mind, even when presented with reasonable explanations of why it may be flawed for some people.You appear to have edited your comment to add a “then” before the last sentence, or I misread.I’m done with this conversation now. Thank you for remaining civil, at least. Have a great day/night.