Can eggs be vegan-friendly?

[ewomack]

Yeah... many discussions on ethics usually go this direction. I find it a pretty squishy topic because so much is personal, hard to define, and sometimes even nebulous. Lifestyles can be ethical or... they might not be. Diets can be ethical or... not. One could be vegan for health reasons alone and not have any ethical stance towards animals. Years ago, my problems with digesting dairy led me to stop eating cheese and other cow or goat milk based items. At the time, I did it purely out of a need for physical comfort. Only over time did I learn more about veganism and begin to have more of an ethical stance towards animals. For me, veganism does have a large dose of ethics in it. For others, that may not be so. I've taken too many ethics classes in the past to go much further (I was a philosophy undergrad). Though fascinating, it can lead down many rabbit holes and dead-ends with difficult to prove or resolve arguments lurking along the way. In any case, it's worth having the discussion, but any resolution will likely not be forthcoming.

Lastly, it looks like the prefix "ovo" only really applies to vegetarians, not to vegans, so one can't be an "ovo-vegan?" I have heard of "ovo-vegetarians," however.

 

[Graeme M]

Yeah... many discussions on ethics usually go this direction. I find it a pretty squishy topic because so much is personal, hard to define, and sometimes even nebulous. Lifestyles can be ethical or... they might not be. Diets can be ethical or... not. One could be vegan for health reasons alone and not have any ethical stance towards animals. Years ago, my problems with digesting dairy led me to stop eating cheese and other cow or goat milk based items. At the time, I did it purely out of a need for physical comfort. Only over time did I learn more about veganism and begin to have more of an ethical stance towards animals. For me, veganism does have a large dose of ethics in it. For others, that may not be so. I've taken too many ethics classes in the past to go much further (I was a philosophy undergrad). Though fascinating, it can lead down many rabbit holes and dead-ends with difficult to prove or resolve arguments lurking along the way. In any case, it's worth having the discussion, but any resolution will likely not be forthcoming.

Just because it is hard to agree on moral principles doesn't mean we abandon the project. Rather, we seek ways to enable a broad discourse that helps us settle on agreed practices. Frequently, these practices are then codified as some kind of set of ethical principles/laws/rules that people must follow, even if individually, some disagree. That is what much of our statute law actually does.

My stance about veganism is that it is absolutely ONLY an ethical stance. In fact, it is ONLY the very same ethical stance that ensues from our moral principles as they apply to other people. I codify this into the idea that veganism seeks to prevent - in regard to other animals - the violation of the same three basic rights tht humans attract. In both human and other animals' cases, the only way these rights can be protected (or violations prevented) is by people voluntarily choosing to do so. As we know in the human case, leaving it open to voluntary agreement is fraught. That is the point of my first paragraph above. The only way to ensure consistent ethical practice is to broadly agree on what that is (ie a set of ethical principles), and then impose rules that poscribe behaviours that violate these principles.

In the case of people, we have a set of principles - human "rights" - that articulate the basic ethical practices to which we want everyone to conform and then we impose laws that prevent transgressions (violations).

In the case of animals, these same principles are not well recognised and we largely do not have supporting laws. So, we are left to make our own choices to respect these principles (rights) as best we can (and advocate for others to make similar choices).

Veganism for me is the idea that we extend our moral scope to include other animals so that when we can, we make choices that act to prevent their rights from being violated.

 

[ewomack]

Just because it is hard to agree on moral principles doesn't mean we abandon the project. Rather, we seek ways to enable a broad discourse that helps us settle on agreed practices. Frequently, these practices are then codified as some kind of set of ethical principles/laws/rules that people must follow, even if individually, some disagree. That is what much of our statute law actually does.

My stance about veganism is that it is absolutely ONLY an ethical stance. In fact, it is ONLY the very same ethical stance that ensues from our moral principles as they apply to other people. I codify this into the idea that veganism seeks to prevent - in regard to other animals - the violation of the same three basic rights tht humans attract. In both human and other animals' cases, the only way these rights can be protected (or violations prevented) is by people voluntarily choosing to do so. As we know in the human case, leaving it open to voluntary agreement is fraught. That is the point of my first paragraph above. The only way to ensure consistent ethical practice is to broadly agree on what that is (ie a set of ethical principles), and then impose rules that poscribe behaviours that violate these principles.

In the case of people, we have a set of principles - human "rights" - that articulate the basic ethical practices to which we want everyone to conform and then we impose laws that prevent transgressions (violations).

In the case of animals, these same principles are not well recognised and we largely do not have supporting laws. So, we are left to make our own choices to respect these principles (rights) as best we can (and advocate for others to make similar choices).

Veganism for me is the idea that we extend our moral scope to include other animals so that when we can, we make choices that act to prevent their rights from being violated.

That's all great. That works for you. I have no problem with that. This doesn't work for everyone, though. Until veganism is actually legislated in some way, anyone can either choose to ignore this entire discussion or to continue the debate, if they want. But if you choose to continue it, how do you resolve it? Who decides what "true veganism" means? How does that definition change over time? Who decides? Who owns it? Without some identified authority, the debate will just continue. I'm not saying it should stop, I'm just saying it will likely never end until a real authority is established, meaning a governmental body, a legislative committee, or some kind of legal entity agrees on a definition and agrees on an enforcement mechanism (and, even if one were established, debates on the "correct definition" would continue). Without that, all you have is ethical argument. And ethical arguments alone often have no obvious resolution or end. That's at least partially why ethics as a subject still lives mostly in philosophy departments and not in science departments. Such debates are still important, of course, and I never said we should "abandon the project." I'm just saying debates like this without a clear authority will likely go nowhere and they may potentially alienate others who may find the criteria for "true veganism" too high (some of the worst conversations I've had about veganism were with vegans). Not only that, I actually agree with pretty much everything you said in your post (animal rights, etc.), but I don't agree on the exclusive grounds that you delineated. I think veganism can come from many sources and doesn't have to mean just one thing. Or be just ethical. You're looking for a legal definition written in marble bearing sharp teeth. I prefer practical ways to convince people to stop eating meat, even if it only means they cut down. I think that's more realistic given the state of the world. In the end, we disagree on approach. That's fine. There is still room in the world for both of us.

 

[Graeme M]

That's all great. That works for you. I have no problem with that. This doesn't work for everyone, though. Until veganism is actually legislated in some way, anyone can either choose to ignore this entire discussion or to continue the debate, if they want. But if you choose to continue it, how do you resolve it? Who decides what "true veganism" means? How does that definition change over time? Who decides? Who owns it? Without some identified authority, the debate will just continue. I'm not saying it should stop, I'm just saying it will likely never end until a real authority is established, meaning a governmental body, a legislative committee, or some kind of legal entity agrees on a definition and agrees on an enforcement mechanism (and, even if one were established, debates on the "correct definition" would continue). Without that, all you have is ethical argument. And ethical arguments alone often have no obvious resolution or end. That's at least partially why ethics as a subject still lives mostly in philosophy departments and not in science departments. Such debates are still important, of course, and I never said we should "abandon the project." I'm just saying debates like this without a clear authority will likely go nowhere and they may potentially alienate others who may find the criteria for "true veganism" too high (some of the worst conversations I've had about veganism were with vegans). Not only that, I actually agree with pretty much everything you said in your post (animal rights, etc.), but I don't agree on the exclusive grounds that you delineated. I think veganism can come from many sources and doesn't have to mean just one thing. Or be just ethical. You're looking for a legal definition written in marble bearing sharp teeth. I prefer practical ways to convince people to stop eating meat, even if it only means they cut down. I think that's more realistic given the state of the world. In the end, we disagree on approach. That's fine. There is still room in the world for both of us.

Overall I don't disagree, but I still think veganism really is an ethical stance. I don't think it can be anything else - if it's for health or for the environment then it's just one of many strategies. And it can be swapped out for something else if the evidence supports that.

The reason I think it's a moral scope concern is because of claims about sentience, about welfare and what's right and wrong about using animals. And as an ethical stance, it is really very easy to apply in everyday life. But, just like how we regard other people morally, in the end it is just up to each of us. Adultery is not legislatively proscribed so as an ethical choice people get to decide for themselves. Is there an ultimate moral authority? Not as far as I can tell. I'm saying it's the same for veganism. No-one gets to decide what "true veganism" is, any more than they get to decide in all the myriad other ethical aspects to life, EXCEPT where we make that choice via legislation.

I'm not asking for a rigid definition, all I am saying is that we simply apply the same moral regard for animals as we do for people, whenever we can do that. What we can do is educate and encourage and if need be advocate for laws when we can. Beyond that, people make their own choices. How can it be otherwise? Part of the reason so many people get bent out of shape over it is that vegans want to shame others into being vegan and non-vegans resist being told what to do.

So, debate SHOULD continue and there should be constant revision and reconsideration until such time as laws are made.

 

[Tom L.]

This is interesting. Here is a post from my farmer friend Yolanda who posed this question in our FB Farmers and Vegans discussion group.

"Can eggs be vegan friendly?
I think they can in an ethical sense. After all. Veganism is an ethical stance.
I believe my eggs do fall into the category of vegan friendly. I give most of my eggs away and I have ordered a stamp to go on my egg cartons to outline their status.

Why vegan friendly?:
* Heritage chickens: bloodlines dating back to the 1950's. No male chicks ever killed at birth. No excess egg laying that can be hard on a hen's body.
* Naturally bred: all chickens naturally mated and raised by broody hens.
* natural lifespan: hens stay on the farm for life.
* 100% pasture raised: there is no limit to where these chickens roam.
* organic: not necessarily a vegan thing. But they are.

The only thing that may be considered not vegan friendly is that excess roosters are culled for the protection of the hens. Too many roosters are harmful and stressful to a hen's health. However I don't see it as any less vegan than animals killed in the protection of crops. The difference being, their bodies are also utilised for food. Both human and dog food. They are grown out to adulthood, free ranging on pasture and dispatched quickly on farm.

(bold/italic emphasis mine) I argue that this is a HUGE distinction. It is true that animals are usually (almost always?) killed in the production of crops (and I assume we're not talking about animals run over by heavy equipment: this is intentional killing of animals who are eating/raiding the crop). We need to eat- but the planting of crops does not involve deliberately breeding crows, deer, woodchucks, rabbits, etc who will then proceed to raid the plants we intend to eat. But as things stand, the production of eggs or milk invariably produces surplus, non-productive (of eggs or milk) animals who are then killed and eaten (or maybe not... see below).

I am currently experimenting with a method to reduce male chickens hatching. Regardless. There is only a small amount of chickens hatched each year since all hens stay for life and will continue to produce eggs. My oldest hens are 8 years old and still lay."

What do you think? I would say Yolanda's eggs are indeed vegan-friendly and my wife and I usually get several dozen every few months. They are delicious eggs.

(emphasis mine again) Are you sure about this? As I understand it, both milk and egg-laying are reproductive functions, decreasing and eventually stopping altogether as the cow or hen ages.

ETA: I'm somewhat baffled as to why your friend is giving the eggs away, although perhaps it's irrelevant to our discussion.

 

[Graeme M]

(bold/italic emphasis mine) I argue that this is a HUGE distinction. It is true that animals are usually (almost always?) killed in the production of crops (and I assume we're not talking about animals run over by heavy equipment: this is intentional killing of animals who are eating/raiding the crop). We need to eat- but the planting of crops does not involve deliberately breeding crows, deer, woodchucks, rabbits, etc who will then proceed to raid the plants we intend to eat. But as things stand, the production of eggs or milk invariably produces surplus, non-productive (of eggs or milk) animals who are then killed and eaten (or maybe not... see below).


(emphasis mine again) Are you sure about this? As I understand it, both milk and egg-laying are reproductive functions, decreasing and eventually stopping altogether as the cow or hen ages.

ETA: I'm somewhat baffled as to why your friend is giving the eggs away, although perhaps it's irrelevant to our discussion.

Yolanda has her chickens as pets of a sort. She likes to breed heritage breed chickens. They live on her farm and simply wander around the place all day. They are allowed to breed naturally. Of course many are killed at end of life just as with say dogs. She ends up with a surplus of eggs because she doesnt eat all that are produced. Because it is not a commercial enterprise she gives away surplus eggs to friends and family.

She does kill excess roosters because they can be aggressive to others . They are then eaten. She regards this as more ethical than killing pest animals when growing crops which end up not being used and may even poison other animals.

 

[Tom L.]

@Graeme M I've also heard/read that roosters are usually extremely aggressive to each other.

 

[g0rph]

One could be vegan for health reasons alone and not have any ethical stance towards animals.

Not really.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about leather, silk, wool, or cosmetics tested on animals...
That would be "plant-based"

 

[animalsbeach360]

I also seem it vegan friendly.

 

[g0rph]

I personally think it's ethically fine to take eggs in the way defined above, but strictly speaking it is not vegan.
Even if the chicken lives a full life, is looked after, is not a "modern selective-bred" eggs laying machine, you are still taking the eggs from the chicken without "consent".
You are still "exploiting" the chicken for those eggs.

This is one of the reasons I have stopped using the word "vegan" on the forum profile.

However, I agree that it's fine. A great example too is Gaz Oakley. He recently got a load of rescue chickens. He mentioned in his video explaining that he doesn't eat them himself, but would not have any issues with it. I agree.

I also agree that having hens is fine... a natural source of fertiliser for growing crops.
But the vegan police on /r/vegan don't like it. **** em, I say.
What is obviously wrong is the selective breeding for size and egg laying frequency and all the unnecessary killing that goes on.

 

[Col]

It isn't vegan, it is not necessary to eat birds' eggs.

I would say it is not ethical either to eat eggs in this way.
The violation is a thing, it is just possibly done behind the animal's back or in a way it is not aware of at best.
There is a violation that has been done by doctors and anaethetists where I live - sexually violating people while under anaesthetic in a hospital waiting for an operation. No-one knew about it, it did not appear to affect anybody, those who have been caught however doing this have been prosecuted because it is a violation. Taking eggs from an animal is a simple violation even if it does not appear to affect it in every conceivable situation.

No matter how well they are treated, even if an animal is welcomed in to a home and treated luxuriously, if it is looked at as a product producing products it is violated. It is not even necessary for animals to be products.

 

[Lou]

Sociologists and Novelists sometimes invent situations to explore the boundaries. of ethics. I'm not a fan.
Ethics is hard enough as it is without inventing new problems. But I do appreciate reading a well thought out discussion.

Some of my favorite science fiction writers do this all the time. Alien rights and robot rights sometimes stand it for civil rights and equal rights. Maybe animal rights, too.

What if there was a sentient alien species that was ill equipped to compete economically with the planet's dominant species and resorted to selling its offspring, before they hatch, to others in order to make a living? How about we give them feathers. And they just sell their feathers. or wool. or silk.

That scenario is not all that far off to a real life ethical problem. Working dogs and working horses. Both species have a partnership - a working relationship. They trade their services for room and board. In some of the animals I've observed it looks like they love their jobs. Although many would argue it's just their training. And people anthropomorphizing.

 

[g0rph]

Sociologists and Novelists sometimes invent situations to explore the boundaries. of ethics. I'm not a fan.
Ethics is hard enough as it is without inventing new problems. But I do appreciate reading a well thought out discussion.

Some of my favorite science fiction writers do this all the time. Alien rights and robot rights sometimes stand it for civil rights and equal rights. Maybe animal rights, too.

What if there was a sentient alien species that was ill equipped to compete economically with the planet's dominant species and resorted to selling its offspring, before they hatch, to others in order to make a living? How about we give them feathers. And they just sell their feathers. or wool. or silk.

That scenario is not all that far off to a real life ethical problem. Working dogs and working horses. Both species have a partnership - a working relationship. They trade their services for room and board. In some of the animals I've observed it looks like they love their jobs. Although many would argue it's just their training. And people anthropomorphizing.

I personally have zero issue with pets. Or working dogs or horses. As long as the treatment is good and no early death when they are deemed past it.
I would obviously like to see lab meat gain traction for pet food etc. But the whole 'consent' thing does seem to be anthropomorphising indeed.
Too often people say 'what if it were a human', but each species is different. All should be given moral consideration of course, and not bred to be eaten or milked or for their skin, but a well looked after dog has a better life than most humans. A garden full of happy chickens too.

 

[Graeme M]

But the whole 'consent' thing does seem to be anthropomorphising indeed.

I think this is the real point. Does exploitation matter if the one being exploited doesn't know about it? Humans can know when they are being treated unfairly and that's a pretty complex concept. Other animals, not so much. All they really care about is their welfare. They don't even care about being killed before their time because they have no idea that is going to happen. The question of exploitation of other animals is more a thing for us to worry about, not the animals.

In the case of the eggs in my case, they are waste products. The chickens simply do not care what happens to them. Is it exploitation? No. Are they being treated fairly? Yes. Is this vegan-friendly? It is, as far as I am concerned. Others may disagree, but I think it's a very long bow to draw to claim these chickens have not given consent. They haven't, they can't, and they don't care.

On the other hand, are commercial chickens being exploited? Yes. Are they being treated unfairly? Yes. Is that vegan-friendly. NO.

 

[Col]

I saw a flock of wild Canada geese yesterday as they spend the winter in the UK. they are not anthropomorphised as they are wild.
No they are not chickens, but I do not think it is anthropomorphic to allow animal rights to birds.

 

[Graeme M]

I saw a flock of wild Canada geese yesterday as they spend the winter in the UK. they are not anthropomorphised as they are wild.
No they are not chickens, but I do not think it is anthropomorphic to allow animal rights to birds.

Absolutely. The way I look at it, veganism can be interpreted as the disposition to act as though other animals attract the same basic rights as people. But I think we should still be willing to distinguish between what that means for other species. The case of domestic pets like dogs is an example. While one of those basic rights is the right not to be regarded as property, in the world we have pets are regarded as property. I don't think that means that we are in violation of their rights to own them because they have no idea they are owned and we can consider that ownership as a form of guradianship. Plus, dogs have been bred to thrive in fair and caring relations with humans.

On the other hand, I think wild geese should be regarded as having the full set of basic rights, so it's not reasonable without good cause to hunt them for food, steal their eggs, imprison them or destroy their habitat.

 

[Lou]

I don't think that means that we are in violation of their rights to own them because they have no idea they are owned and we can consider that ownership as a form of guradianship. Plus, dogs have been bred to thrive in fair and caring relations with humans.

not sure. but I don't think that is part of the equation.
falling back to 18th century philosophy - maybe the only real question is "do they suffer".

 

[Graeme M]

not sure. but I don't think that is part of the equation.
falling back to 18th century philosophy - maybe the only real question is "do they suffer".

Is that enough? And how much suffering is necessary to trip our moral concern in terms of veganism? For example, my friend's sheep do not typically suffer any more than were they wild and free. Probably far less.

 

[Lou]

Is that enough? And how much suffering is necessary to trip our moral concern in terms of veganism? For example, my friend's sheep do not typically suffer any more than were they wild and free. Probably far less.

I don't think it's a contest.
maybe the question is if "we" are causing the suffering. Is the suffering avoidable.

 

[g0rph]

I saw a flock of wild Canada geese yesterday as they spend the winter in the UK. they are not anthropomorphised as they are wild.
No they are not chickens, but I do not think it is anthropomorphic to allow animal rights to birds.

Giving all animals rights of some sort is a good thing.
But they definitely don't need the same rights as humans... I mean the right to vote?

I think, moving forward, chickens are and can be an excellent way to fertilise crops. Sure, we need to get back to a more "natural" chicken, one that doesn't lay eggs every day. But living a alongside them in a mutually beneficial way. Surely that can be ethical.

I don't know if you watch Gaz Oakley on Youtube, but he recently acquired a bunch of rescue hens. They provide fertiliser and pest control for his garden and he provides a safe and caring home.
Gaz Oakley - Why I have chickens