Is killing acceptable?

[silva]

I agree. From what I know (about health and diet- I probably have an above-average grasp of this, BUT I'm not a health-care professional), a vegan would almost have to make an effort to contract cardiovascular disease. Granted, a few vegan foods are high in saturated fat (e.g., coconut oil), and trans fats from hydrogenated vegetable oil could be a problem.

We really need to remove health standards when we use the term vegan. Vegan only means what you don't eat, and just because it's cholesterol free does not imply heart health!
Use "plant based", or better yet, WFPB, as a sub category

As a vegan my total cholesterol went up to as much as it was before I even went vegetarian. I had it lowered to 160 while still eating some dairy, but wfpb other than occasional pizza and low fat dairy yogurt. When I tried to stick with WFPB completely my individual levels were far better--like low ldl, higher hdl
Vegan eating Beyond Burgers, vegan cheeses, vegan mayo, sweets and baked goods--omni levels

 

[Lou]

This morning I heard on the news that a new law in California makes its easier to get a license to hunt wild pigs. Also it creates a higher limit.

This puts me in a bit of a conflict. Part of me is just against it. Maybe I should be writing letters or protesting. but then it seems like wild pigs are a form of vermin or pestilence.

SB 856: California law to control wild pig population pending Newsom's signature

The new bill reclassifies wild pigs from "protected game animal" to "exotic species," a new designation makes it easier to kill them, and no limits on hunting them.

abc7news.com

 

[Rory17]

Forum Legend Lou has said on more than one occasion that veganism only demands that we avoid exploitation of other animals. Here is an example:

"I pretty much fall back on the definition of veganism. It doesn't prohibit the killing of animals. Just their exploitation. So farming insects for food is not vegan. but there is no prohibition against killing insects (or mice) that are in your house."

I have said before that I have never in my life heard this said. Almost all definitions or explanations for veganism talk of preventing harms and death to other animals as equally important as exploitation. On this alternative view, it seems perfectly fine to hunt for sport, something no vegan I have ever met would support.

I am curious where this definition has come from and whether it means that most people who think of themselves as vegan are under a misapprehension about what veganism really means.

I disagree. Veganism is about compassion, respect, kindness, care and decency to animals. It is also about respect, kindness, compassion and care for the planet. It is about being opposed to the intentional, unnecessary killing of and cruelty towards animals, not just the exploitation.
If a person was against slavery, but okay with/in support of/actually committing murder, domestic abuse, rape and/or unnecessary and particularly unjust war, as well as being a violent person prone to immoral actions, they would be a hypocrite. Why would it be any different for vegans when it comes to animals and their rights and animal morality?
If a person was otherwise vegan, but they went and deliberately killed insects/rats/any other misunderstood “p**t” animal when they didn’t need to, would that be vegan? No. Would it be moral? No. Would it be just? No. Would that person still be a vegan? Perhaps - debatable (?) If the person were to truly regret it, promise not to do it again, make up for it by helping insects/rats/other animals in some way and honour and respect the animal/s’ memory, should they be forgiven? Yes. Could they go back to being a true vegan again? Yes.
There are so many repellents and humane, live traps and humane, non-lethal removal methods. Why do people still kill the animals unnecessarily? That rat had as much right to live as a cow as a dog as even that person did…

 

[Danielle]

As someone who has love for rats, skunks, and other "pests" I do find it hard to deal with them humanely.
When I was a teen, we had one of those snap traps. I heard it go off and I went to check on it. Felt awful when I saw the rat still squirming. We lived in Chicago, you'd see rats everywhere. I did get rid of the trap but our house was ran by rats... we kinda just ignored the problem...
then we moved to the suburbs since the house was sold.
I feel bad for killing wasps even though I know they'll sting me.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Forum Legend Lou has said on more than one occasion that veganism only demands that we avoid exploitation of other animals. Here is an example:

"I pretty much fall back on the definition of veganism. It doesn't prohibit the killing of animals. Just their exploitation. So farming insects for food is not vegan. but there is no prohibition against killing insects (or mice) that are in your house."

I have said before that I have never in my life heard this said. Almost all definitions or explanations for veganism talk of preventing harms and death to other animals as equally important as exploitation. On this alternative view, it seems perfectly fine to hunt for sport, something no vegan I have ever met would support.

I am curious where this definition has come from and whether it means that most people who think of themselves as vegan are under a misapprehension about what veganism really means.

Coming back to the original post, I want to point out a slight discrepancy in interpretation.

@Lou's interpretation of the most widely quoted definition of veganism rejects the exploitation of animals. If we accept that no-one does anything for literally no reason - a small leap of faith I grant you, but a reasonable assumption - then the hunting of animals for sport would still be exploitation since the hunter is engaging in the killing for personal gain (satisfaction, entertainment, food as just a few examples). In that case, @Lou's interpretation still doesn't conflict with @Graeme M's viewpoint.

The only area of significant conflict of views I have seen on this forum surrounds the harming of animals for pest and disease control reasons. Some will argue killing of rats to deal with an infestation is necessary, whilst others will argue the only acceptable methods of control are non-lethal.

Personally, I'd be happy for a population of malaria-infested mosquitos to be killed, but I don't see any issue with leaving moles to their own devices despite what they do to my lawn - one's necessary for health, the other's only justifiable on aesthetic grounds. That probably demonstrates the need for a closer definition of what is and isn't justifiable to protect by lethal force. However, I'm not vegan so perhaps my views ought not to carry much weight here since my threshold may not fit within "normal" vegan bounds.

 

[beancounter]

I'm a simple guy. In my mind, killing is a form of exploitation.

 

[majorbloodnok]

I'm a simple guy. In my mind, killing is a form of exploitation.

And I can certainly understand your viewpoint even if I don't share it; all I prefer is that anyone shows consistency in their viewpoint and you've certainly demonstrated that.

I see it more as a scale. At one end of the scale is the killing that is an inevitable consequence of my existence; I can't, for instance, travel anywhere without a fly sooner or later being killed as a result of hitting my windscreen or even accidentally being swallowed (if I'm walking or cycling). At the other end is the complete disregard of any value a life may have; pulling the legs off a fly for any fleeting "entertainment" value it might hold, for instance. Every other act of killing will appear somewhere on that scale and I believe everyone will have their own fairly fine tuned idea of where on that scale acceptable stops and unacceptable begins.

For me, if I were about to be attacked by something or someone clearly intending me harm, I would have no qualms about fighting back with, if necessary, deadly force. It could be argued that I'm exploiting it/them by putting my own life's value above theirs. If that's true, I don't have any problems accepting that. Nonetheless, I don't see the killing or not killing question in quite as binary a form as you.

 

[Graeme M]

Exploitation is an interesting question. I won't pretend to know exactly how it should be interpreted, but I think it just means "use". In relation to people, it seems to mean to use unfairly. For example, capitalism often exploits workers who do not share equitably in the profits from their labour. We get around that mostly by determining a fair wage, so it's still exploitation but not quite as unfair as it could be.

Farming animals doesn't seem to me to be exploitation until we get to the killing part. Take say beef cattle. They get food, somewhere relatively safe to live, medical treatment etc in return for just eating and being there. Then they get killed for our food. Is that unfair? Most would say yes, so it's considered an exploitive practice. Some say the main problem is more about using them as a means rather than treating them as an end in themselves and that seems wrapped up in the idea of exploitation.

Is hunting a deer or catching a fish for food exploitation? Again, I suppose it is because killing them seems unfair.

On this view, it doesn't seem to be exploitive to kill an animal that threatens you, so killing pest animals seems safe on ethical grounds. Killing pest animals in the growing of crops also seems to be a defensive strategy so I don't think that is unethical either, as I have suggested here before.

 

[Tom L.]

Gah... I'm about to have a minor meltdown... both @majorbloodnok and @Graeme M make perfect sense!

I've usually concentrated on whether or not an animal is killed, simply because I so often see the argument made that, so long as a hunted or farmed animal is shown "respect" or is killed "humanely", this use of an animal is acceptable. I've had two problems with this: First, I don't see how someone can be relied on to treat an animal with any "respect" if they see no value in an animal's very existence. Second, I honestly don't think animals generally have an intellectual conception of "death", but they certainly do appear to enjoy life- even fishes and insects- therefore killing them is harming them. (The question of euthanasia is a somewhat different case, and also difficult for me).

That said, I can see that if a human gets a benefit from using an animal, there is a danger that this relationship can degenerate into a situation where the human ONLY cares about what they can get from the animal. (This can happen even with humans; recall the "sweat shops", etc. which formerly existed before laborers organized.) But at least in theory, I can see how a domestic animal in the care of humans who genuinely care about them, such as a working ox or horse, might have it better than a wild animal.

 

[silva]

Gah... I'm about to have a minor meltdown... both @majorbloodnok and @Graeme M make perfect sense!

I've usually concentrated on whether or not an animal is killed, simply because I so often see the argument made that, so long as a hunted or farmed animal is shown "respect" or is killed "humanely", this use of an animal is acceptable. I've had two problems with this: First, I don't see how someone can be relied on to treat an animal with any "respect" if they see no value in an animal's very existence. Second, I honestly don't think animals generally have an intellectual conception of "death", but they certainly do appear to enjoy life- even fishes and insects- therefore killing them is harming them. (The question of euthanasia is a somewhat different case, and also difficult for me).

That said, I can see that if a human gets a benefit from using an animal, there is a danger that this relationship can degenerate into a situation where the human ONLY cares about what they can get from the animal. (This can happen even with humans; recall the "sweat shops", etc. which formerly existed before laborers organized.) But at least in theory, I can see how a domestic animal in the care of humans who genuinely care about them, such as a working ox or horse, might have it better than a wild animal.

Something that doesn't get enough attention in these discussions is the disparity between the well to do and those who struggle with both responsibities and finances. As with so much else, the well off have a far greater role in animal exploitation and also far easier for them to prevent it in their personal lives . The families who struggle contribute far little to both use as well as every other animal and environmental exploitation. They are also far more hard pressed to do as much about it. Try have a rental with children with rats or insects and think about what they should be expected to do about it--catch and release? really? They most likely work in a place that routinely kills them, as well as trashes 1000's of times what should be recyclable than they ever have.
We truly need more focus on the cause of the problems rather than the people who have little choice

I probably shouldn't have tagged @Tom L. here as I got off the track!

I'm a bit jaded as there is nothing I can do about the tons of waste in my own 'eco friendly' workplace
The use of plastics and such in manufacturing towers about anything you see in stores

 

[Tom L.]

@silva No, that's okay- you made perfectly valid points.

 

[Lou]

I'm a simple guy. In my mind, killing is a form of exploitation.

maybe if you are just trying to keep it simple. but way before you kill a farm animal you are exploiting it.
One of the reasons we vegans don't worry so much about the animals that we kill incidentally is that we don't benefit from their deaths.

Farming animals doesn't seem to me to be exploitation until we get to the killing part. Take say beef cattle. They get food, somewhere relatively safe to live, medical treatment etc in return for just eating and being there. Then they get killed for our food. Is that unfair?

Your argument works if the animals actually live in good conditions. Maybe that still happens in some parts of the world. I grew up on books about rural farm life where the chickens ran free. the pigs were happy in their pen, and the cow spent each night in a barn, got milked and then sent out to the back forty to graze.

But that idyllic scene doesn't occur except in rare situations anymore. Nowadays the chickens live in giant dark smelly crowded barns. the pigs live in cages that are much bigger than themselves, and beef cattle live in feedlots. This is what I think of when I think of exploitation.

Is hunting a deer or catching a fish for food exploitation? Again, I suppose it is because killing them seems unfair.

Kind of a gray area. but as long as there are alternatives for the hunter of fisherman to obtain food, if the hunting and fishing is just a form of entertainment its exploitation.

On this view, it doesn't seem to be exploitive to kill an animal that threatens you, so killing pest animals seems safe on ethical grounds. Killing pest animals in the growing of crops also seems to be a defensive strategy so I don't think that is unethical either, as I have suggested here before.

Yes. and I still agree with that sentiment.

------
Part of the issue here is that people need to simplify.

That is one of the reasons we have rules and rules and rule books.

We make so many decisions each day and most of them we don't have to think about or think about for very long. and most of us pretty much make all those decision by using rules. Some of those rules are made by society and some by us. and some using a combination of the two.

but we always have to remember that rules have exceptions and that we not only need to think of ourselves on occasion but also to explore and evaluate the rules sometimes.

 

[beancounter]

And I can certainly understand your viewpoint even if I don't share it; all I prefer is that anyone shows consistency in their viewpoint and you've certainly demonstrated that.

I see it more as a scale. At one end of the scale is the killing that is an inevitable consequence of my existence; I can't, for instance, travel anywhere without a fly sooner or later being killed as a result of hitting my windscreen or even accidentally being swallowed (if I'm walking or cycling). At the other end is the complete disregard of any value a life may have; pulling the legs off a fly for any fleeting "entertainment" value it might hold, for instance. Every other act of killing will appear somewhere on that scale and I believe everyone will have their own fairly fine tuned idea of where on that scale acceptable stops and unacceptable begins.

For me, if I were about to be attacked by something or someone clearly intending me harm, I would have no qualms about fighting back with, if necessary, deadly force. It could be argued that I'm exploiting it/them by putting my own life's value above theirs. If that's true, I don't have any problems accepting that. Nonetheless, I don't see the killing or not killing question in quite as binary a form as you.

Binary?

I'm not a pacifist. I too will defend myself with deadly force if necessary.

Also, I was referring to intentional killing. Killing a fly while driving is virtually unavoidable, and I certainly wouldn't lose sleep or sink into an ethical conundrum over it.

 

[Graeme M]

your argument works if the animals actually live in good conditions.

Fair point, I didn't mean this in relation to CAFO systems, which clearly are exploitive and generally objectionable. I have a friend who is a sheep and cattle farmer and her animals are living very good lives as far as life goes for a herbivore, so it is hard to see that they are being exploited as they live.