Is my diet moral?

[Second Summer]

As long as there are victims, your diet is not moral. That's the simple truth. Veganism has a definition (per the vegan society) and means to exclude all animal abuse and exploitation, or the products therof. Yogurt made from breastmilk (unless that milk was given with the mother's consent) absolutely involves exploitation, and most often abuse. One is either vegan or not.

No, there are gray areas, and the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society says it only goes "as far as is possible and practicable" - full definition here:

Definition of veganism

What is a vegan and vegan food? What does veganism mean?

www.vegansociety.com

You can of course choose to try and practice veganism in a very conservative way just to be on the safe side - never eat food you didn't prepare yourself because you're afraid of cross-contamination and misunderstandings, carry around your own hand soap when you leave your house because you don't want to use potentially non-vegan hand soap in public bathrooms, try to avoid taking any kind of conventional medication because it's been tested on animals, and so on. I wouldn't recommend this style of veganism, firstly because it has a tendency to slowly drive you to the edge of madness and secondly because it makes veganism seem extremely hard and extreme.

 

[chickenmammalove]

No, there are gray areas, and the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society says it only goes "as far as is possible and practicable" - full definition here:

Definition of veganism

What is a vegan and vegan food? What does veganism mean?

www.vegansociety.com

You can of course choose to try and practice veganism in a very conservative way just to be on the safe side - never eat food you didn't prepare yourself because you're afraid of cross-contamination and misunderstandings, carry around your own hand soap when you leave your house because you don't want to use potentially non-vegan hand soap in public bathrooms, try to avoid taking any kind of conventional medication because it's been tested on animals, and so on. I wouldn't recommend this style of veganism, firstly because it has a tendency to slowly drive you to the edge of madness and secondly because it makes veganism seem extremely hard and extreme.

There is a big difference between knowingly eating dairy and eating a dairy-free chocolate bar made in a facility that uses milk. Taking medication (all of which legally must be tested on animals) as a vegan is what falls well within the "possible and practicable" definitions. Like any social justice movement, there will inevitably be grey areas, but too often I hear so-called vegans making excuses, making out that they're the victim because it's too hard, and forgetting about the actual victims whom they've sworn to fight for. This is a typical carnist argument.

 

[chickenmammalove]

Your post suggests no diet is moral.
It also raises an issue that has been bugging me and maybe this is a good opportunity to clarify it. The person who first introduced me to veganism was very strict and considered having pets a form of animal exploitation, but since then have noticed most vegans are very comfortable with having pets. Isn't there a contradiction? It is okay to have dogs and cats or other animals but it is not okay to have chickens and cows?

Not sure how I'm implying that no diet is moral, unless you're attempting to argue that plants and fungi are victims. To the latter question, I think it depends not on the animal, but how he came to be in one's life and the purpose of his being there. If it's a cat or a dog, was she bought from a breeder? In that case she's not vegan, as breeding is exploitative. However, adopting a dog or cat to love and care for is vegan. With a cow or chicken, again, was he bought or rescued? Is she there to provide eggs or milk, or to be loved and cared for to the end pf her days? Backyard hens have become recently popular, and many see them as being a "humane" option for eggs. However, those hens are bought (reinforcing the notion that animals are property), their male chicks were cruelly killed (just as they are in the egg industry), the hens themsleves were bred, and most people do not always buy them thinking about the long term commitment, so those hens are often abandoned, neglected, or killed in the end. Whereas, a vegan might adopt a chicken to care for with the same love as she would a dog. If the chicken laid eggs, her carer would feed them back to her. Vegans look after animals with the animal's best interest at heart.

 

[chickenmammalove]

Not sure how I'm implying that no diet is moral, unless you're attempting to argue that plants and fungi are victims. To the latter question, I think it depends not on the animal, but how he came to be in one's life and the purpose of his being there. If it's a cat or a dog, was she bought from a breeder? In that case she's not vegan, as breeding is exploitative. However, adopting a dog or cat to love and care for is vegan. With a cow or chicken, again, was he bought or rescued? Is she there to provide eggs or milk, or to be loved and cared for to the end pf her days? Backyard hens have become recently popular, and many see them as being a "humane" option for eggs. However, those hens are bought (reinforcing the notion that animals are property), their male chicks were cruelly killed (just as they are in the egg industry), the hens themsleves were bred, and most people do not always buy them thinking about the long term commitment, so those hens are often abandoned, neglected, or killed in the end. Whereas, a vegan might adopt a chicken to care for with the same love as she would a dog. If the chicken laid eggs, her carer would feed them back to her. Vegans look after animals with the animal's best interest at heart. I don’t have any pets currently, but if I had the space, I’d love to adopt a horse or a cow. Cows are actually very playful when they aren’t so stressed, and they’re incredibly sweet. If I didn’t have the space those big animals would need, I might adopt a rabbit, dog, or chicken. We’ll see. I think that if we all treated pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, sheep, and goats the way we treat cats and dogs, then everyone would be vegan. People don’t keep dogs and cats for them meat or hair or skin...they don’t expect anything from them. That’s what we want for chickens and cows.

 

[fakei]

Not sure how I'm implying that no diet is moral, unless you're attempting to argue that plants and fungi are victims. To the latter question, I think it depends not on the animal, but how he came to be in one's life and the purpose of his being there. If it's a cat or a dog, was she bought from a breeder? In that case she's not vegan, as breeding is exploitative. However, adopting a dog or cat to love and care for is vegan. With a cow or chicken, again, was he bought or rescued? Is she there to provide eggs or milk, or to be loved and cared for to the end pf her days? Backyard hens have become recently popular, and many see them as being a "humane" option for eggs. However, those hens are bought (reinforcing the notion that animals are property), their male chicks were cruelly killed (just as they are in the egg industry), the hens themsleves were bred, and most people do not always buy them thinking about the long term commitment, so those hens are often abandoned, neglected, or killed in the end. Whereas, a vegan might adopt a chicken to care for with the same love as she would a dog. If the chicken laid eggs, her carer would feed them back to her. Vegans look after animals with the animal's best interest at heart.

Regarding the first issue, and to some extent also the second, I assume you are considering only the direct victims, but what about the indirect ones?

Regarding pets there is no doubt that adoption mitigates it, but is not enough, you would have to include in the list not allowing the adopted animal to breed or feeding him a vegan diet even if he is a carnivore; something not all, including some vegan pet owners, would agree with. And the adopted animal would have to be a famine one picked in a canil or appearing at the doorstep and not some that some neighbor had allowed be bred and is now giving for adoption.
Clearly some forms of assistance like feeding abandoned cats in the street are just a way to perpetuate and aggravate the problem.


There are of course a lot of things that can go wrong whether the animal is adopted or not, never knew any apartment male cat that hadn't been castrated, for instance.

 

[beforewisdom]

Here is a thought many vegans will not want to accept and not accepting that thought will hurt animals as well as the environment.

Many people transition to vegan diets slowly. Some only do it partially.

Putting them down for not being as vegan as you are will hurt their feelings and will contribute to them abandoning their positive efforts.

Yes, their feelings are their responsibility.

Your words are yours.

It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Vegans need to ask themselves if they truly care about animals and the environment or if getting a jizz from self righteously owning someone else is more important to them.

 

[Lou]

I've never understood why people mention foods fortified with B12, as if it's somehow better than a tablet or a liquid
Vitamin D--you should get tested! Some people are fine with only sun, others don't ever receive it's benefits, and need to supplement

in some ways, fortified foods are better than supplements. First off many vitamins need to be taken with food. so that part is automatic.
I do have 100% of the RDA in my multi. but according to Dr. Gregar, you can't absorb more than 33% at once. then the absorption rate drops down to 1%. So I get the rest by drinking and eating fortified foods throughout the day.

I also think, and can provide references if someone calls me on this that there is absolutely no advantage in consuming cow's milk. Yogurt can be made with plant milk. And I also doubt that the probiotics in yogurt are essential or necessary. They certainly aren't irreplaceable. You can get probiotics from any number of fermented foods.

 

[silva]

in some ways, fortified foods are better than supplements. First off many vitamins need to be taken with food. so that part is automatic.
I do have 100% of the RDA in my multi. but according to Dr. Gregar, you can't absorb more than 33% at once. then the absorption rate drops down to 1%. So I get the rest by drinking and eating fortified foods throughout the day.

I also think, and can provide references if someone calls me on this that there is absolutely no advantage in consuming cow's milk. Yogurt can be made with plant milk. And I also doubt that the probiotics in yogurt are essential or necessary. They certainly aren't irreplaceable. You can get probiotics from any number of fermented foods.

B12 should be taken on an empty stomach as it needs an acidic environment. I prefer to take supplements because I know I'm getting the optimal amount, the same reason Dr Greger recommends cyanocobalimin, because it is stable where methyl easily degrades
Most D caps are in oils, but what's hard about taking them with food?
Anyway, the worst part of the op's logic is thinking we can interpret our bodies needs for nutrients, instinticively

 

[Lou]

B12 should be taken on an empty stomach as it needs an acidic environment.

I've never heard that. tried looking it up just now and i can't find any references to that.

 

[silva]

I've never heard that. tried looking it up just now and i can't find any references to that.

I've heard it from Dr Greger but can't find a link, only this one--

When Is The Best Time To Take My Vitamins?

The timing of when you take your supplements can significantly affect the way in which your body can absorb and utilize the nutrients.

www.cleaneatingmag.com

 

[silva]

Optimum Nutrient Recommendations | NutritionFacts.org

nutritionfacts.org

Not the newer one I wanted though

 

[chickenmammalove]

Regarding the first issue, and to some extent also the second, I assume you are considering only the direct victims, but what about the indirect ones?

Regarding pets there is no doubt that adoption mitigates it, but is not enough, you would have to include in the list not allowing the adopted animal to breed or feeding him a vegan diet even if he is a carnivore; something not all, including some vegan pet owners, would agree with. And the adopted animal would have to be a famine one picked in a canil or appearing at the doorstep and not some that some neighbor had allowed be bred and is now giving for adoption.
Clearly some forms of assistance like feeding abandoned cats in the street are just a way to perpetuate and aggravate the problem.


There are of course a lot of things that can go wrong whether the animal is adopted or not, never knew any apartment male cat that hadn't been castrated, for instance.

Veganism is about what is possible and practicable. Unfortunately, we live in a world where animals are abused and exploited at every turn. If we tried to account for every possible factor, vegans wouldn't be able to live. Veganism is about what we can choose, which is quite a lot! It amazes me how there are vegans in extreme circumstances where there are rations and food shortages, and still choosing not to participate in animal suffering.

Regarding pets, there is some disagreement within the vegan community, but in my view, these principles are most vegan:

1. Adopting an animal from a shelter or sanctuary who needs a home and care and might otherwise be euthanised for lack of funds is absolutely vegan.
2. If your pet is herbivorous, it's pretty straight forward. Feed them the plants they're designed to eat. Rabbits, for instance, thrive on hay and veggies.
3. I haven't researched it myself, but have heard from others who have, that dogs, being omnivorous, can thrive on a well planned plant based diet. Certainly the mainstream dog food is terrible for any dog's health.
4. For obligate carnivores, for whom there isn't solid evidence of thriving on plants alone, it seems that there are three options: feed them a plant based diet, in spite its not being healthy for them; let them loose to hunt their own food; or feed them a species specific diet, which would include dead animals. The first, I don't see as being vegan because veganism includes respect for all species - not just herbivores. To feed a cat in your care a diet which will harm their health, is not vegan in my opinion. The second option would result in a lot of environmental destruction, as cats kill for pleasure as well as for food. The third, I think, amounts in the least harm. It's looking out for the cat's well being, and preventing that cat from destroying many more animals than she needs to for food. Personally, I don't think I'd choose to adopt a carnivore, but I think it's vegan to do so and to feed them a species appropriate diet. Until there's an option that is both healthy for cats and does not amount in suffering, it seems the best option.
5. I think it's fine to spay/neuter one's pet. It often results in a longer, healthier life, and prevents babies being born when we already have more animals than homes. One could make the argument that it violates that animal's reproductive rights. I think, its being in the animal's best interest means it's not exploitative. We have to consider that these are domestic animals, unable to fend for themselves in the wild, and we have to go with the option which amounts in the least harm. We have a responsibility for the creatures we brought into being.
6. Veganism is a human ideal. Other species might practice cannibalism, abandon (or even kill) their young, rape, or kill each other. We don't impose our morals about those things on other species, and it's no different with veganism.

 

[fakei]

Veganism is about what is possible and practicable. Unfortunately, we live in a world where animals are abused and exploited at every turn. If we tried to account for every possible factor, vegans wouldn't be able to live. Veganism is about what we can choose, which is quite a lot! It amazes me how there are vegans in extreme circumstances where there are rations and food shortages, and still choosing not to participate in animal suffering.

Regarding pets, there is some disagreement within the vegan community, but in my view, these principles are most vegan:

1. Adopting an animal from a shelter or sanctuary who needs a home and care and might otherwise be euthanised for lack of funds is absolutely vegan.
2. If your pet is herbivorous, it's pretty straight forward. Feed them the plants they're designed to eat. Rabbits, for instance, thrive on hay and veggies.
3. I haven't researched it myself, but have heard from others who have, that dogs, being omnivorous, can thrive on a well planned plant based diet. Certainly the mainstream dog food is terrible for any dog's health.
4. For obligate carnivores, for whom there isn't solid evidence of thriving on plants alone, it seems that there are three options: feed them a plant based diet, in spite its not being healthy for them; let them loose to hunt their own food; or feed them a species specific diet, which would include dead animals. The first, I don't see as being vegan because veganism includes respect for all species - not just herbivores. To feed a cat in your care a diet which will harm their health, is not vegan in my opinion. The second option would result in a lot of environmental destruction, as cats kill for pleasure as well as for food. The third, I think, amounts in the least harm. It's looking out for the cat's well being, and preventing that cat from destroying many more animals than she needs to for food. Personally, I don't think I'd choose to adopt a carnivore, but I think it's vegan to do so and to feed them a species appropriate diet. Until there's an option that is both healthy for cats and does not amount in suffering, it seems the best option.
5. I think it's fine to spay/neuter one's pet. It often results in a longer, healthier life, and prevents babies being born when we already have more animals than homes. One could make the argument that it violates that animal's reproductive rights. I think, its being in the animal's best interest means it's not exploitative. We have to consider that these are domestic animals, unable to fend for themselves in the wild, and we have to go with the option which amounts in the least harm. We have a responsibility for the creatures we brought into being.
6. Veganism is a human ideal. Other species might practice cannibalism, abandon (or even kill) their young, rape, or kill each other. We don't impose our morals about those things on other species, and it's no different with veganism.

Your last point then contradicts the above points?

To be honest your arguments are not convincing regarding pets. The outcome of having pets doesn't look very different from having fowl or other farm animals. In some aspects it may even look worse. It may be, or at least look, different in the intent, but then, like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Cats and dogs have large litters, for instance, what happens to all of the offsprings?

From what I read near 50 thousand abandoned animals are rescued every year in my country and not even half of those are adopted. And most people I know get their animals from canils where , from what I understand, you can get all kinds of exquisite breeds for free these days. The animal rights party was able to pass a law that prohibits the killing of them but which increases the number in shelters. In which way does the situation of these animals, and others who are adopted but kept in inappropriate conditions, differ from that of chickens for egg production?

Then of course there is the environmental impact. Even if you feed the cats and dogs with vegetarian food you still need to grow that food. If you grow that food to feed a cow or a chicken you are still producing food for humans, but if you grow to feed a dog or a cat it's wasted crops since they will not be feeding humans. And if you let cats and dogs survive on their own like other predators they would hardly exist in the same numbers and would have a much smaller environmental impact. If you don't believe just compare the millions of cats and dogs owned in my country with the 109 Iberian Lynx and 300 wolfs living currently in the wild.

If you agree that no diet is without victims, and the advantage of strict vegetarianism is in average being less cruel and more environmental friendly then there is no point of contention on this issue.

 

[chickenmammalove]

Your last point then contradicts the above points?

To be honest your arguments are not convincing regarding pets. The outcome of having pets doesn't look very different from having fowl or other farm animals. In some aspects it may even look worse. It may be, or at least look, different in the intent, but then, like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Cats and dogs have large litters, for instance, what happens to all of the offsprings?

From what I read near 50 thousand abandoned animals are rescued every year in my country and not even half of those are adopted. And most people I know get their animals from canils where , from what I understand, you can get all kinds of exquisite breeds for free these days. The animal rights party was able to pass a law that prohibits the killing of them but which increases the number in shelters. In which way does the situation of these animals, and others who are adopted but kept in inappropriate conditions, differ from that of chickens for egg production?

Then of course there is the environmental impact. Even if you feed the cats and dogs with vegetarian food you still need to grow that food. If you grow that food to feed a cow or a chicken you are still producing food for humans, but if you grow to feed a dog or a cat it's wasted crops since they will not be feeding humans. And if you let cats and dogs survive on their own like other predators they would hardly exist in the same numbers and would have a much smaller environmental impact. If you don't believe just compare the millions of cats and dogs owned in my country with the 109 Iberian Lynx and 300 wolfs living currently in the wild.

If you agree that no diet is without victims, and the advantage of strict vegetarianism is in average being less cruel and more environmental friendly then there is no point of contention on this issue.

What would you do with all of the domestic animals we have bred if you think it’s unsuitable for them to be adopted into loving homes?

 

[fakei]

What would you do with all of the domestic animals we have bred if you think it’s unsuitable for them to be adopted into loving homes?

What would you do with all the animals bred for eating if you believe they are unsuitable for eating?

Just say no is the solution in both cases, BTW, even though it may be more heart breaking in one case than the other.

 

[skhande2]

Guys, there is a saying, if you save a man's life, you are responsible for all the evil he commits. By this logic, saving a carnivore is counter-intuitive. But you have to eat an animal that is capable of more savagery than you. Thats like cops killing terrorist. By this logic, eating a cat is great because over her lifetime, she would have eaten wayy too many mouses. So as long as we only hunt carnivorous animals, its a moral lifestyle?

 

[chickenmammalove]

What would you do with all the animals bred for eating if you believe they are unsuitable for eating?

Just say no is the solution in both cases, BTW, even though it may be more heart breaking in one case than the other.

You didn’t answer the question.

 

[fakei]

Guys, there is a saying, if you save a man's life, you are responsible for all the evil he commits. By this logic, saving a carnivore is counter-intuitive. But you have to eat an animal that is capable of more savagery than you. Thats like cops killing terrorist. By this logic, eating a cat is great because over her lifetime, she would have eaten wayy too many mouses. So as long as we only hunt carnivorous animals, its a moral lifestyle?

Are you responsible for any actions but your own?

 

[fakei]

You didn’t answer the question.

Just say no, that's the answer. In the last decade or so only remember a person mentioning purchasing a dog, but many mentioning adopting cats and dogs. Also don't recall seeing any advertisements about purchasing animals but remember many people coming by with moving stories to try to get pets adopted and self entitled animal friends promoting adoption in the media. This is a problem being run in good part, not only, by good samaritans, and the solution is just saying no.

And this refers to new acquisitions and not pre existing animals with whom the person assumed a responsibility that should be honored.

 

[chickenmammalove]

Just say no, that's the answer. In the last decade or so only remember a person mentioning purchasing a dog, but many mentioning adopting cats and dogs. Also don't recall seeing any advertisements about purchasing animals but remember many people coming by with moving stories to try to get pets adopted and self entitled animal friends promoting adoption in the media. This is a problem being run in good part, not only, by good samaritans, and the solution is just saying no.

And this refers to new acquisitions and not pre existing animals with whom the person assumed a responsibility that should be honored.

Just say no doesn’t answer my question. What would you have done with the animals who are alive and need a home? If you’re against people looking after them, what would you have done instead?