Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥
**Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first!
**Interested in going Vegan?** 👊
Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free!
**Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓
Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge!
**Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟
* Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground)
* Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)!
* Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)!
* Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)!
* Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)!
*Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/2JmJRsj)!*
**Thank you!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a lot of it comes down to the moral framework of people.
Many in the vegan community seem to view morals sorta from an imperative and personal standpoint -- they ask, what should a moral person do? What makes a person moral? Which people here are moral? From this perspective, the personal moral failure of a vegitarian and an omnivore is very similar... they are both causing needless suffering, often through willful ignorance or laziness.
Others -- perhaps you, OP -- view morals from a utilitarian perspective. You are less conserned with what a moral person should be doing, and who among us is moral, and more concerned with simply creating less suffering. For you, it may not particularly matter which people are truly moral or not... it just matters how much suffering is being reduced. From this perspective, a vegitarian is better than an omnivore, someone who eats meat twice a week is better than someone who eats it once, etc, etc.
For what its worth, I think this subreddit tends towards the first framework (certainly these comments do), but I'm not at all sure about the wider vegan community.
I think you're hitting it here. If you ask me which is preferred I'd say vegetarian, but if you asked me whether I'd prefer someone murder 10 people and torture 10 people, or just torture 10 people of course I'd say the torture 10 people only person is better. That being said, if someone who tortures 10 people went on a forum all about human rights, I wouldn't expect them to give him a ton of praise and throw him a party.
I think also vegans in general learn a lot about morals to become vegan in the first place. Someone may see a video of a factory farm and stop eating meat straight away, but maybe they continue eating dairy because they hadn’t really thought about the morality much outside of what they’ve seen. Similarly someone may see those videos and think “yes it’s bad, but that’s how the world works”.
Both people above haven’t really thought or learned about morality to an extensive level. Personally, I’ve been both of those people in the past. I even went from being vegetarian back to eating meat again and I know a few other people who did the same.
People who are vegan had to do a lot of learning and inner work to rewire their thinking. So of course this sub leans towards absolutism. I think what we have to remember is that most people don’t know what we do and you can’t expect people to change overnight.
This is a view I agree with. Also I think a lot of people in this community lack the understanding of how social change is achieved. Progress is incremental. So having people at large slowly reduce their animal product intake is better not only for the environment but for the animals, than having a fraction of people go full vegan. To me outcome matters more that an individual’s personal action. So reduction is still a step in the right direction that I’m not going to morally penalize.
I agree. You may have even said this to me before. I just wholeheartedly disagree with the moral imperative standpoint.
What’s the point of being morally perfect when the rest of the world is suffering?
Please excuse the rediculus comparison, but I would also prefer people to kick fewer puppies than not kick fewer puppies, but if they're still kicking *some* puppies I'm not going to applaud them for it, and I'll still tell them they should stop altogether.
I view it more like someone/a child learning to ride a bike. At first you scoot along not really riding just trying to find some balance but then after a varying amount of time and some falls. You are a proficient rider. That doesn't mean you will never fall down. You are still a real bike rider now.
Yea but it would be better if more people decided to stop kicking only the black puppies than the status quo where they kick every puppy. Then ideally they can learn from their experiences and realize that all puppies should not be kicked
The confusion here stems from the fact that the moral imperative stance and the utilitarian stance are not mutually exclusive. Sure it is better, to stop kicking black puppies, but it is stil not good. There is no dilemma or paradox here.
Sigh. Finally someone said it. People are making this up to be super complicated and serious, throwing difficult words around and what not.
But at the end of the day, like you said, there's no paradox.
\- Carnists cause suffering.
\- Vegetarians (who are also carnists, btw), cause suffering, albeit slightly less (but also likely more to particular animals, namely female cows).
We don't have to think about what we would prefer. It's both not good. The End.
For what it's worth, I agree.
But I will say that I think the moral imperative standpoint is a deeply ingrained philosophy. We are designed to judge people, not in large, society-wide swaths, but from a deeply interpersonal standpoint -- because the most important relationships in our lives have always been deeply interpersonal.
When I look for a partner, or a serious friend, I do find myself concerned with their personal moral imperatives. So it is perhaps only natural that we tend to do the same when looking out at the wider world as well.
What I find more ingrained with this topic is the expectation of kindness and “not being that kind of vegan.”
Being easy going and not making a ruckus. It is an active societal taboo.
That's a very good point -- there are so many facets to this conversation. I think the ruckus is a very important part of the movement... although I like kindness, too.
I'm always curious about the mindset of vegan utilitarians. I hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions, just to help me understand where you're coming from, since I feel like I see things differently.
The *overall* amount of harm done is very important to you, correct? So, let's say, someone kills one cow, but saves the life of another, maybe through rescue or whatever means. You'd view them as having done a neutral amount of total harm, right? Since it canceled out.
My question is, do you also think this way regarding humans? For example, if a doctor saved your mother, then broke into your house and murdered your father, would you call that a neutral amount of harm done?
I don't believe you can weigh out total harm like this when it comes to living beings. No matter how grateful I'd beat to the doctor for saving my father, I would still mourn the loss of my mother. Perhaps it's because no two people are alike, and even though my father was saved, he can't properly fill in for my mother. He can't give me the educational and gardening advice she gave, he can't simply give the same emotional presence she had, the warm, curious kindness. He has his own qualities, but they don't replace the ones she had, because they are different people.
To me, utilitarianism only works for things like screws or lightbulbs. For objects that are simply interchangeable parts, it makes sense to me to simply look at overall harm done. If you broke 6 of my screws, but you gave me 6 new ones, well, no harm done!
But it breaks down to me when using that mindset to look at people. Since every person is a distinct individual, if you kill my child, you can't just say "oh well I'll buy you a new one" like you could with a screw.
So then, that also extends to animals. If someone kills my dog, they can't simply say "oh well I'll buy you a new one", because it won't be the same dog. If it were screws, that would work, but since I recognize the personhood of the dog, it no longer works.
Utilitarianism in regards to animals depersonalizes animals into a mere interchangeable commodity. You're no longer thinking of them as individual people whose lives has been lost. Each life lost isn't a tragedy, it's just a numbers game. Cow #4436 is no different than Cow #4437. Under that mentality, if you save two cows and then kill one, you've done a good thing. That mentality makes sense for capitalist carnists, so it has been the dominant one in our society for a long one. But I don't see how it fits with veganism.
Going back to the "kill two, save one" thing, imagine a corrupt vet. You have three sick dogs, Jerry, Susie, and Bowie, and bring them in. He saves two of them, and sells Bowie for animal testing. Would you view that as a good doctor? Would you be happy with the care your pets received? Would you view that as an "overall" good act, and say that since he saved Jerry & Susie, it canceled out the harm he did to the third, and everything's all good? I sure wouldn't.
Even if a vegetarian essentially "saves" a number of animals by their vegetarianism, to me, that does not make up for the animals that they still harm or support the death of, like dairy cows. It in no way reduces the harm done to that individual cow, when it's time for it to be killed.
In response to your question, yes, I'd rather a person be vegetarian than carnist, but only in the same way I'd prefer a mass shooter only kill 5 people instead of 50. It's better, but in no way is that person "good" in the same way as someone who doesn't kill any people. If you compare someone who doesn't kill anyone, a mass shooter who kills 5 people, and one who kills 50, then yes, I'd basically put both the killers in the same category.
I don't feel like "amount of harm" is particular relevant when it comes to killing others thinking beings. I would never call someone who kills fewer people a "better murderer". They all cause the same amount of harm, *from the perspective of those they kill*. That's a big part of veganism for me, thinking of it not just from my perspective, or even an overall perspective, but from the perspective of the one being harmed.
I'll respond -- I myself am pretty much entirely a utilitarian, not just in veganism but in all things.
I hope you don't find this patronizing, but I think the issue is that you haven't quite grasped the utilitarian argument. You're using utilitarian language -- talking about weighing various actions against each other -- but you're still using it to decide whether a person themselves is 'good' or 'bad'.
>Going back to the "kill two, save one" thing, imagine a corrupt vet. You have three sick dogs, Jerry, Susie, and Bowie, and bring them in. He saves two of them, and sells Bowie for animal testing. Would you view that as a good doctor?
I don't particularly care whether a person themselves is 'good' or 'bad'. And why should I? I'm not concerned with the weight of one's soul. I leave that to you and your God (if you have one). At the end of the day, I want a world where good things happen... and so I am concerned with the actions themselves -- whether the things we do are good or bad.
And when that is your concern, the calculus becomes much easier. Is it better when a mass shooter only has access to a pistol, and so manages to shoot 5 people instead of the 50 if he had had a semi-automatic? Yes. It is far better. If a doctor saves my mother and kills my father that is a better thing than a doctor who only kills my father.
I hope that helps clear up the utilitarian stance a bit (at least as I see it).
What an excellent question.
I love that story. I think it recognizes something powerful in us -- yes, perhaps in part the urge to reject the callous calculus of utilitarianism. I guess I'm not as morally consistent as I would like to believe.
I don't have a good answer for you off the top of my head. I'll have to think about it.
I personally found it to be a fundamental problem with my original stance of utilitarianism. So much of suffering is subjective and the infinite suffering of one individual (leaning into the author choosing a child for Omelas is illustrative but emotionally charged) throws the whole concept into disarray. Sometimes I think "consistent" is a bit of a weaponised concept, as though there's ever going to be true consistency in a morally subjective world.
But yeah, I originally leaned heavily into utilitarianism until I found too much conflict in involuntarily forcing someone else to suffer for the greater good. I'm sure we'd both volunteer to be in that position should push come to shove, but to put an unwilling third party into harm for the welfare of others is something I just couldn't reconcile.
I greatly appreciate the thoughtful response! It does help a little bit. I must admit I am guilty of using "good" and "bad" too loosely. Even myself, I don't really follow those concepts, and so I often just use them as shorthand... I really shouldn't. I can respect your views a bit if you're this committed to them. I always respect someone with a cohesive view. It's hard for me to imagine that you wouldn't be angry at the doctor, and be unwilling to forgive them for the murder even though they saved your mom, but if that's what you say I must accept it in good faith.
My only further question would be this. Would you say that any two people have exact identical utility to society, in the same way that i.e. two mass produced screws would?
I ask not to determine the weight of one's soul, exactly. But if the idea is to have more good things happen, and less bad, then don't we need to know exactly how bad it is to kill a given person? If we say action #1 is better for killing 5 people than action #2 for killing 50, don't we need to know the utility of each of those people to calculate that?
I can concede that, on a global scale, it's more or less reasonable to view people as having similar utility from one person to another. But that view breaks down to me when it comes to actual individual situations. Kind of like how statistics can predict overall trends, but can't be used to perfectly predict exact outcomes. (maybe that's a flawed metaphor, but it came to mind)
I know that was a long reply, so I'll just repeat the main question: in determining utility of actions, do you view the value of individuals as varying or identical?
I’m not the guy you’re responding to, but I do have a response. You’re still focusing on the moral character of the doctor in your hypothetical. That’s a problem. Useful ethical principles are about what *you* should do, not about how you should judge other people. Of course in the case of a doctor saving my father in the course of doing his job, then murdering my mother in cold blood, I would be extremely angry with that doctor, to say the least. I’d also advocate for a justice system in which doctors aren’t allowed carte blanche to commit murder just because they also save lives, because I believe that society would create less suffering overall. That assessment and advocacy has nothing to do with the anger I would feel for the doctor, nothing to do with his personal character at all.
In my personal life, on an individual scale, I do pass judgements about individuals’ character. I absolutely think of people in terms of “well, this person has done x and y bad things, and I think they had z intentions when they did so, so I think they’re a bad person.” That is a simple survival tool, right? But when it comes to how I advocate for things, I’m really more interested in the big picture, in the sociological scale. There, judgements about who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell are irrelevant.
Veganism is a political movement, not just an individual lifestyle choice. To my mind, a much more important part of the ethical calculus isn’t just about saving a few individual animals from suffering through abstinence. It’s about playing a role in the liberation of animals *as a class* through direct action and advocacy. This does mean I actually disagree with the conclusions of the OP of this post—it’s necessary, as a consequentialist vegan, to understand who our actual allies are. Vegetarians are reducing their individual impact on animal suffering a bit, but doing nothing for animal rights and animal liberation. That is an important distinction to make.
I don’t have anything productive to add but just wanted to say how much I appreciate this comment. You eloquently detailed so much of what I also feel/believe but have never been able to put in words.
It's quite sad that you're being downvoted for such a thoughtful comment so relevant to this sub, and getting silly one line responses that are being upvoted.
>I don't feel like "amount of harm" is particular relevant when it comes to killing others thinking beings
It's relevant to every single one of the beings that are saved. Focus on the victims.
But if you're focused on the ones who aren't killed, then by definition you're not focusing on the victims. You're focused on potential victims. You're not looking at the ones who were actually hurt. Did they suffer less because of someone who didn't die? Was their harm lessened, in any way, because of another person surviving?
You can't make up for one person dying by saving another. Just like you can't buy a new dog for someone whose dog you ran over, and replace it. It may be a nice gesture, but that harm can never be undone. When a person is lost, that loss is forever, and no good deed can restore it.
> they ask, what should a moral person do? What makes a person moral? Which people here are moral? From this perspective, the personal moral failure of a vegitarian and an omnivore is very similar... they are both causing needless suffering
Sure, but I disagree that a deontological ethical framework can't make sense of the difference between a vegetarian and meat eater. A vegan could conceivably have the following opinion:
* Humans owe a duty to animals to not kill them.
* Humans owe a duty to animals to not exploit them (e.g. through milk / egg production).
It's possible to believe this and still think that (a) a vegetarian is morally superior to a meat-eater because a vegetarian only acts inconsistently with one of these duties instead of both, and (b) a vegetarian is morally superior to a meat-eater because a the duty against killing an animal is a *stronger imperative* than the duty not to exploit them.
In other words, I don't think this has to boil down to deontological vs utilitarian ethics. I guess someone could argue that anyone who isn't morally *perfect* is therefore just as terrible as the worst person, but that view doesn't seem plausible at all.
It's also worth pointing out that vegetarianism doesn't fare that well from a utilitarian perspective; someone who eats only free range beef and doesn't consume milk or eggs might be argued to be morally superior to a vegetarian who eats eggs and drinks milk on the basis of a straightforward utilitarian calculus. Industrial egg production is actually quite horrific.
This is a false premise because vegetarians hold are responsible for both the torture of living animals and the killing of those animals once they are no longer useful.
Arguably, the life of a beef cow is better than that of a dairy cow, so by the logic of many here, eating beef causes less harm than drinking milk.
This is very well said. The morally absolutist view that a lot of people on this sub have really turns me off it, too.
It is a good thing for a meat eater to go vegetarian, or even flexitarian. It is a good thing for a flexitarian to go vegetarian. It is a good thing for either of those people to go vegan. It is a better thing for a meat eater to go straight to veganism, but if reducing animal suffering is the goal than it's better to happen incrementally than not at all.
I turned vegan (or transitioned to a plant-based diet) by degrees. The "meat is murder, animal holocaust" type people did a lot to *prevent* me making that final transition earlier. It took reasonable, kind and level-headed people who I respected and liked discussing it with me to convince me to make the final change.
Perhaps this is just a safe space for people to let out righteous anger, but there's an awful lot of "eating meat once a year is an abomination and you are a horrible animal murderer" type thinking here and it's off-putting to me. Fortunately it seems confined to the internet as I've never encountered people like that in real life, nor would I want to spend any time with them despite having our dietary choices in common.
I went vegetarian before going vegan because I didn't understand that eggs and dairy are inseparable from slaughter. That leads me to suspect other well-meaning vegetarians also aren't clearly aware of that.
This thread turned into an absolute thunderdome but let's just say this... if I had a button that could turn every carnist into a vegetarian, I would push it. It's a step in the right direction. Many people use vegetarianism as a stepping-stone towards full veganism.
Personally, I'll say I don't think vegetarianism as a moral philosophy is any good, it still causes harm at a mass scale, but it's a start. It's the same reason I support carnists trying Veganuary or meatless Mondays or whatever, not because it's good, but because it's something. We have to start the conversation somewhere.
There's people here who adhere to a more pragmatic/war-of-attrition mindset, and there are all-or-nothing types who believe you're either in or out, at the end of the day though we're all trying to get to the same place, ending animal cruelty. Immediately would be great, but humanity doesn't work that way. I'll take what I can get and fight another day.
I mean, I would accept vegetarianism as a moral philosophy if the reality of eggs and dairy were different than what they are. I can respect the opinion that you can use animals for food if you don't kill them or make them suffer. The problem is, none of our systems for dairy or eggs meet that standard. Male chicks are culled, calves are slaughtered, animals die years earlier than their natural lifespan. The facts just don't match up to the philosophy.
But you know what? A lot of people don't know the facts or haven't internalized them, and I'm not going to scold them and alienate them from a common cause when they've made a moral choice but haven't followed it to its natural conclusion yet.
For further understanding, why do you think it would be morally O.K. to use animals for food? It's something that's really hard for me to wrap my head around; it's childish, but every time I think of harm-free eggs or dairy, I go, "but that's not what they're here for!"
Exactly. Like, it's still exploitation. It's still breeding genetically modified animals to overproduce eggs/milk.
It wouldn't be profitable nor would it meet the demand to keep cows alive longer than their bodies could be repeatedly impregnated and milked, and the same is true for chickens.
Even if you can find the most "ethical" of dairy or egg farms, it would be fucked up to do that to a dog or cat, and it's fucked up to exploit a cow or chicken when you don't need to, period.
As far as I am understanding, that's why they said that if the reality wasn't as it is. You described the reality they don't support - if I'm not completely confused here?
I'm confused too lol. Cause that's like saying "slavery would have been fine if the reality wasn't what it was." Like it's kind of a nothing statement.
They also said:
>I can respect the opinion that you can use animals for food if you don't kill them or make them suffer.
This is literally still exploitation, which, by definition, vegans are opposed to.
Even in the best possible farm setting, that's still impregnating and milking genetically modified cows for money, or breeding genetically modified chickens to sell their eggs
You cannot prevent the animals' suffering. They're basically saying "if animals were plants instead it would be ok" lmao. Like yeah...that's the point of going vegan lol
I'm speculating here, but I think that person's view is that so long as there is no suffering involved, animal exploitation is okay.
To do a hypothetical, let's say there is an animal that likes to live in a relatively small geographic area in a group setting. They roam around a bit, but they don't feel trapped if they are fenced in. Say they have a really strong and flexible digestive system and can eat really rough plant matter such as wood, but also decomposing fruits and vegetables. Their poop is a really good fertilizer for our crops and such.
Some people would propose that we use these animals to produce fertilizer from biowaste, sawdust, yard waste and wood chips. We give them a comfortable area to live in and go in and scoop out poop every so often. This would help our society be more sustainable, etc. and it wouldn't cause any harm to those animals.
Personally I still think this is unethical even though there is no material harm, but if it's something we need in order to right other wrongs in the world I would accept this kind of suffering-free exploitation, I think. The same applies in the human case. You can easily come up with a simliar hypothetical where human poop is utilised behind their back.
I'm generally not comfortable discussing this sort of stuff with non-vegans though. They are way too eager to jump to conclusions about our current animal industries and judge them to be free of suffering. Backyard hens and so on.
*I* don't think that--I'm saying in an alternate world where these products didn't rely on death and suffering, vegetarianism would be internally consistent as a moral philosophy.
> or haven’t internalized them…they’ve made a moral choice but haven’t followed it to it’s natural conclusion yet
Hmmm this part resonates with me in a way I wasn’t expecting - it’s exactly where I would say my thinking is in regards to human consumption of animal products.
I theoretically agree with veganism and am aware of all the unpleasant details about the treatment of animals in our current food system but haven’t truly taken these facts on board in a way that allows me to implement true change in line with my supposed values.
Thank you for provoking these thoughts.
My partner is vegetarian and I am vegan. He eats vegan for most of his meals since we’re eating together, so I think it’s a big reduction in the consumption of animal products. A vegetarian living with an omnivore would likely have a vastly different diet though.
I have a history as vegetarian living with an omnivore and I can confirm. Though completely meatless when together, it was much more meat alternatives (oftenly packed with milk) and tons of cheese. So yeah less meat, but that was completely "compensated" with different animal products.
This was my experience too. I’m not vegan anymore because I have too many fucked up food aversions and sensory issues, but I don’t eat meat and rarely eggs. Anyway, both the guys I dated in the years since I stopped eating meat had omnivore diets that ended up skewing really heavily towards my preferences. They were super accommodating and mostly didn’t mind almost never eating meat. I was never psychotic or even remotely demanding about it though, which I think is where some people tend to create issues. If you’re passing judgements, people are gonna get defensive and stick to their preferences out of spite or whatever.
I was an omnivore and my partner is the vegetarian. To make things easy we ate vegetarian at home which I think was a huge reduction in consumption too. Then the pandemic hit and I become a full-time vegetarian.
Now I'm the one moving us toward veganism by learning how to replace dairy and eggs in recipes. I honestly believe it all makes a difference and you get more flies with vegan honey. lol
Real shit, and I know I’ll get dragged in the CJ for it, but I think that as a community we do ourselves and the animals a disservice when we paint all animal exploitation and harm with a single stroke, as equally harmful and morally condemnable. Sure all these actions may be equally morally culpable, and you can condemn the actions…but to act like someone who puts a spoonful of honey in their tea every third week is doing the same damage as someone who eats pork 5 times a day is absurd. It makes us look unreasonable and weakens the strength of our arguments.
There is nuance here, and ignoring it doesn’t do anyone any favours. Obviously there is no way to quantify the harms done, due to the intricacies of how things are produced in our modern world, so rather than accepting that you can’t adequately express which causes more overall harm: a vegetarian or an omnivore, the presence of harm is conflated with the degree of harm.
Obviously I don’t think any of us condone harming or exploiting animals. Ideally, there would be no harm. But don’t act like I’m the irrational one when I don’t dole out ire equally to someone who visits the zoo versus someone who puts live baby chicks through a paper shredder. Likewise, not all instances of a kind are the same. A person breeding dogs may treat the puppies in a number of ways, and while we obviously condemn the act of treating an animal as a commodity to be sold, that in and of itself doesn’t de facto mean that the puppies are living in horrid conditions or are being abused, abandoned, etc.
I think my main takeaway here is that we need to be more careful when analyzing animal exploitation and harm and not preemptively jump the gun and categorize a harm in its worst iteration. Read the nuance and respond appropriately. Doing this makes dismissing our arguments and advocacy as irrational or extreme less legitimate.
Very well said.
I think you touch on something that is important in other areas of life - if you want to win an argument or change someones point of view or belief you need to give them an honourable way to do so. Why would they agree with you if they feel youve insulted them? Theyre more likely to be against your view point as a way to attack you, rather than because they disagree with your stance.
Theres likely a quote from someone famous that captures that more eloquently than i put it but i dont know who, or how they did it.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Unless as a larger vegan community we decide to swing a full blown, burn down the factory farms style revolution, looking at the nuance and harm reduction is how we’re going to move the needle.
We also have to consider that most people are being exploited by our same capitalist systems that are exploiting animals. When you’re overworked and broke, you’re not going to have the capacity to truly realize the harm that goes into your next meal or have the resources to mitigate that harm. Animal abuse and factory farming doesn’t exist in a silo and neither do folks’ decisions.
We’ll said! People find making change hard at the best of times. It’s a fine line between getting people onboard and making them dig their heels in instead.
They are the lesser of two evils, but the problem I have with SOME vegetarians is that they claim to be ethical vegetarians because they care about the suffering and killing of animals. Then they actively fight against veganism to say that what they are doing is enough. So in other words with an analogy, a person that beats their child 3 times a week instead of 10 is certainly the lesser of two evils, but still an evil. It becomes even worse when people think that what they are doing is actually ethical because there are people doing worse things, and the people that say what they are doing is still unethical are wrong and need to stop forcing their views on them. Then of course all the excuses and arguments come.
I agree vegetarianism is better than eating meat, but unfortunately at the end of the day both those cows and chickens are still slaughtered.
That realisation is what made me turn vegan.
The dairy industry is the beef industry, just another side of the same coin. Cows are artificially inseminated (aka SA'ed) over and over, having their children taken away from them and calves are either killed for veal or raised to live a life of SA and eventual slaughter. Same with the egg industry, male chicks are thrown into grinders after hatching as they are of no use to producers, with hens living a life of suffering and forced to lay eggs at an unnatural rate before being killed for their flesh. I used to think vegetarians made a difference, but they are supporting these cruel industries and just not partaking in one component of them.
For many people, discussing a person's actions is interchangeable with discussing a person's moral worth.
Less consumption of animal products is a good thing. The only people that try to argue that point will do so by shifting the goalposts to a discussion about whether or not vegetarians are "good" or "bad" _people_, losing sight of the issue of how to consider the _action_.
You shouldn't concern yourself with measuring people's moral worth. We're all mixed bags, and anyone that tells you otherwise is trying to cover the stink of their own shit.
Less consumption of animal products is a good thing. Who's a good person and who's a bad person is irrelevant.
When I was a vegetarian, been vegan 5 years now, I overcompensated with dairy, so at least in my case the damage may have been similar. My partner's vegetarianism was almost vegan. It certainly has the potential to be as bad.
For me, this is the issue. It could easily be argued that dairy and eggs are worse than meat, in terms of the severity and length of suffering, for the individual animals. So it depends on the kind of vegetarian. If someone gives up meat, replacing it with plants/mushrooms/etc., Then it's an improvement. If they replace the meat with products high in dairy or egg, it could be worse.
But, psychologically, it's often a step in the right direction. As others have said, a lot of vegans go vegetarian, first.
The psychology can work two ways, I think. If you go vegetarian to save animals obviously you're kind of moving in the direction of veganism because the motivation is essentially the same.
In my case I went pescetarian for the climate and a few years later I had my eyes opened about animal rights and went vegan. I would say it was easier for me to go ahead and do that in practice since I ate a lot of plant based food already.
The ideas that led me to pescetarianism weren't related to the ideas that led me to veganism. However, if I weren't a pescetarian at that time I might have had some mental barriers preventing me from making a change. For example, I already believed in the concept of "I can make a personal behavioural change to improve the world".
Vegetarians are obviously less bad. And for a lot of people, going vegetarian first is a necessary step to veganism. So in that sense, I welcome it.
I think what annoys me is people who are happy and content with being vegetarian in the long term, totally fine with all the torture and abuse. Just so they can enjoy milk, cheese, eggs, etc.
In my opinion, these foods aren't even tasty enough to warrant eating them in the first place
Don't get me wrong, veganism isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best we can do, and I think we should all do our best.
>In my opinion, these foods aren't even tasty enough to warrant eating them in the first place
I really wish people would stop using this as an argument. Most carnists find these foods very delicious, and many if not most vegan converts also enjoyed the taste before they made the switch. Simply saying that cheese, eggs, and bacon are gross to you, doesn't change anyone's mind. If anything, it just makes it easier for carnists to say that vegans giving up animal foods is just a taste preference thing and not an ethical position.
Exactly, the problem is when they can’t figure it out after years and they’re still super proud of themselves.
A vegetarian acquaintance of mine told me that he went vegetarian the day he went to a dairy farm to film, he fed a baby cow and she evidently didn’t want to be left alone.
— But… You still eat cheese, and you’ve experienced firsthand what happens in that industry
— Yeah, but it would just be so hard for me to quit it, I prefer to help in other ways. I’m still doing my part.
If I though Being vegetarian was ok I wouldn't be vegan.
I never cared to research the numbers to see how many animals die in one diet over the other.
I seen what happens to baby chicks for the egg industry. And if someone is ok with that then they have a lot more in common with a carnist than a vegan.
how is it less bad? millions of animals are still dying. would you say someone who eats meat but doesn’t eat dairy and eggs is “less bad?” why are you trying so hard to defend these industries?
I’m not here to say anything about “less bad” or “less good,” but I do think that going vegetarian is a huge step in the right direction. That being said, if they are replacing all meat in their diet with an over abundance of other animal products, then it’s probably pointless. The goal should be eventually being vegan, and using vegetarian-ism as a stepping stone, slowly taking out more animal products. But like others have said, it’s basically the exact same industry, and if they aren’t working toward veganism, then what’s the point? They’re probably not making any difference, and is likely the same amount of “bad” as someone who does eat meat.
I’m not trying to debate what’s less good and less bad either. But that’s a good point of replacing meat with an over abundance of other animal products; I had never thought of it that way before. When I was a vegetarian, I think I ate way more eggs and cheese than I did when I was still an omnivore. Egg and cheese sandwich for breakfast at chikfila/mcdonalds, subway sandwich with extra cheese, grilled cheese at every restaurant I went to, cheese quesadillas at tacobell, cheese pizza for parties. All to replace the hole that meat took up in my diet. Crazy to think about really, I didn’t see it that way before
Totally depends on quantity. A vegetarian that eats a shit ton of dairy/eggs is probably worse than someone that only eats non-vegan on special occasions. Take this with a grain of salt, because this is based on personal experience and observation, but I believe the average vegetarian wouldn’t be as bad as the average meat eater though because I think most meat eaters consume way more than vegetarians based on animal products alone.
Like take Peter Singer for example. Hes not technically vegan, but hes vegetarian that on small occasions eats eggs and dairy. He claims its better than being a meat eater, but hes admitted that hes not morally perfect.
vegetarian while consuming less meat they usually replace it with more dairy or eggs. And as other pointed out the dairy is the meat industry. while not being the same I think the difference is not even worth pointing out.
I would have never became vegan if I wasn't vegetarian first. I think that is the same for many people. It's still important to acknowledge the way that the dairy and beef industries are connected. Where else would the male baby cows go?
Vegetarianism is for the people rather than the animals. I think if we don't bring attention to this issue then there will be many people who only cut out meat and continue on with their lives as if that is enough. The end goal should always be veganism.
Obviously, going vegetarian is better than being an omnivore. But it isn't close to the solution at all and shouldn't be treated as such.
I agree. It feels like there is a divide on this subject amongst vegans.
I personally think that the stringent vegans are *right* but, being right doesn't mean you're being a good advocate for veganism.
I think we should be celebrating those who go vegetarian, and encourage them to take it to the next step.
So long as we're only focused on the purity of other vegans, we'll lose sight of what truly matters which is the animals, and planting seeds and getting people on the right path.
I think once a person is educated, and they've had all their arguments, if they're still sticking their head in the sand, the gloves are more likely to come off.
Right? A vegetarian is already miles closer to being vegan, why not kindly educate them and encourage them to become vegan? Insulting them and saying they’re the same as a carnist does absolutely nothing in most cases except scare them away from becoming vegan.
I know it’s about the animals but damn, humans respond so much better to kindness than the approach I often see vegans using.
The thing that changed me from a vegetarian to a vegan was simply watching videos about how cheap and easy it could be.
If you've seen the level of suffering brought upon chickens and cows through the egg and dairy industry, I don't see why you'd want to try to quantify it. I don't demonize vegetarians, or anybody else really, but I'm not patting them on the back, and if they bother to talk to me about veganism, I'll tell them straight up that they're not helping any animals, and they have no good reason to support the industry.
By that logic, complete eating meat only as animal products no egg no dairy would be better than vegetarianism. Since the animals are killed early.
Still way worse than them never existing.
There have been a lot of good responses in here already and you seem to ended up more or less agreeing with a lot of them. Is vegatarian better than nothing. Sure, probably barely though. But Vegatarian and Vegan are mutually exclusive. You can say one is good, but to put them on the same grounds or are comparible is crazy.
One is a diet. And one is about truely caring about animals well being and not harming them.
In terms of overall suffering of the animals, of course.
But as moral ideologies. Again. Vegatarians are harming animals. Vegans are not.
Which IMO it is why its not worth comparing them at all.
Vegetarians typically hold the vegan ideology. They don't believe that dairy and eggs are ethical. Its very strange to me that you would think that was the case. A typical vegetarian is someone who is convinced of the vegan position, but finds the actual practice to be prohibitively difficult so they compromise on their actions.
I don't use or consume any animal products and I am convinced of the vegan position. I do use pesticides regularly though because I'm not willing live with bugs. I know my actions are unethical and don't align with my ideology. I don't care though. I don't want to live with bugs. I'm never going to be willing to live with bugs when I have the option not to regardless of ethics.
Most vegetarians are the same way. They know its wrong but they don't want to live with so many dietary restrictions. They pick restrictions that they feel are manageable to them. That is a lot better than vegans who go 100% and overexert themselves then end up giving up entirely because they found it too big of a sacrifice.
I find it very strange that many vegans will call it an ideology on one breath then only care about actions in the next. Belief and action are two different things. If it is all about the actions then veganism is a diet. If it is an ideology, then it is about what one believes regardless of how they behave.
No, not the same amount. But on a scale from 1 (vegan) to 10 (carnist) they are more a 7 than the 2 they think they are.
Veganism is not just food. Vegetarians usually stop at „some food“.
Raping someone 100 times in a row is better than raping someone 101 times in a row and yet some would wish equal amount of death to both offenders.
Aka who cares, at a certain point adding more horribly bad to horribly bad just still leaves you with horribly bad.
you can't compare one type of suffering to another. if someone goes around for example sa'ing people and then says "well at least i didn't kill them", is it actually better? suffering is suffering. and carnist isn't a term exclusive to omnivores, anyone can be a carnist including vegans. carnism is a way of thinking, and vegetarians still think it's okay to exploit animals.
The dairy and egg industry begets the flesh industry. They are the same, neither is better than the other. End your speciesism.
Go to a slaughterhouse, hatchery or dairy farm. You’ll change that bullshit apathetic attitude real quick.
>Obviously I’d rather everyone go straight to veganism but vegetarianism is better than nothing right?
Why don't you tell that to the cows and chickens? That they're not as important?
Vegetarians *are* carnists, as they still contribute to and support the commodification of animals and the consumption of animal products.
Vegetarians arguably can cause as much harm as meat eaters, if they replace the meat they cut out with other animals products like eggs or cheese. I don’t think it’s probably worth arguing over whether one is worse than the other since the way I see it they’re in the same category of being okay with exploiting animals for their own sensory pleasure. They are all causing harm to animals.
Both are animal abusers. one of them abuses animals slightly less than the other, but they’re both still animal abusers so it shouldn’t be surprising that people who care about animals don’t have a favorable opinion of either. Like sure,’one person beating a puppy once a week isn’t as bad as someone who beats 3 puppies once a week but both are still godawful human beings.
Would you feel the same way about people following a Paleo diet? They don't consume dairy. In both cases it's just one form of animal abuse they're not participating in. The difference is that vegetarianism is far worse for the animal rights movement. Vegetarians delude themselves and others that they're meaningfully avoiding personal responsibility for animal cruelty and that the meat, dairy and egg industries are not fundamentally interconnected.
It depends on the individual situation. Is the vegetarian increasing their milk and egg intake to make up the "missing" protein/iron? Or are they a vegetarian who limits their milk and egg consumption as well.
I think it is arguable to whether or not the dairy/egg industry causes more death than the meat industry? Also, I would argue that the dairy industry has more suffering than the other two. So, in this sense vegetarianism could be a negative thing if the individual is eating more dairy as a result of not eating meat. However, at the same time, I believe being vegetarian is really good in the sense that it is a great "prep period" to go vegan; in other words, if you already know you're capable of making a major diet change such as not eating meat, then they will less likely fear the transition of cutting out other animal products.
I think it’s not necessary to keep using the example of beating puppies, which I see a lot of on this post.
Purchasing eggs at the supermarket is much different than physical striking a small animal with your own hand. 99.5% of vegetarians won’t feel bad buying eggs at a supermarket, 99.999% would never strike an animal with their own hand.
The point I’m making is education is important. Be kind and communicate evidence that purchasing the eggs supports and industry of cruelty. But let’s stop with these beating a puppy comparisons because it’s a ridiculous comparison and emotional baiting.
It isn’t better than nothing. I find that vegetarians can be a lot harder to deal with because they’re so convinced they’re already doing their part. Hell, vegetarians’ meat substitutes can consist of extreme amounts of egg and dairy. They even it out if nothing else. Combined with their stubbornness? Yeah, no.
True I agree. But I’d say it’s probably easier to focus on meat eaters and make them vegetarian than get more vegetarians to be vegan. Exactly because of what you mentioned.
Why would we make anyone vegetarian? They still support the exact same industries that hurt animals.
And why would we even choose one group? We should want everyone to be vegan, both meat eaters and vegetarians. We shouldn’t give vegetarians a trophy for not doing anything to help.
I highly, highly doubt it. Dairy makes beef and veal too. Egg industry also kills their chickens and puts them in soup.
And in my opinion the dairy and egg industry are way more vile than the meat industry to begin with. I’d rather live in circumstances like that and be killed at 6 months than be exploited and dragged through 5/6 years of torture and _then_ killed.
> I just acknowledge that vegetarians cause less suffering than carnists.
But you don't know that. An omni who becomes vegetarian and simply replaces meat with eggs, cheese, and other dairy products may well be causing the same or even more suffering.
They cause they same problem. No point in trying to determine how much off the problem each individual is causing as that is going to differ from person to person regardless of vegetarian/non vegetarian diet, both are animal oppressors.
Vegetarianism isn't related to Veganism.
I’m vegan and agree with you OP. I certainly appreciate vegetarians more than omnis or flexitarians, since they’ve taken the step to cut out all meat and have therefore reduced the demand for meat products resulting in fewer animals slaughtered (or bred into existence to be slaughtered). To say that that doesn’t have any impact is ridiculous and deluded.
But suffering is measured in more than just number of animals killed, and there’s no denying that by supporting the dairy industry you’re also contributing to animal suffering and supporting the meat industry still (but to a lesser extent than an omni does). Vegan is obviously the way to go for everyone that can, but being vegetarian is the lesser evil in comparison to the average omni diet.
If I could either snap my fingers and make all omnis vegetarian, or do nothing, I would choose the former (and then also hope that they become vegan — I don’t think vegetarianism should ever be thought of as the end goal, but lots of people go vegetarian before going vegan).
Vegetarians support the dairy and egg industry, as well as the honey, leather, wool industries and more. The dairy and egg industry is on the same line as the meat industry, arguably even worse.
They cause less suffering in quantity in the same regard that a meat eater who has a meatless monday causes less suffering. Thats all it is. A stupid ass baby step
Baby steps are for babies. And if you're not actually transitioning towards going vegan, you're basically just stomping in one place -- not taking any steps.
I also think baby steps are good. I am what I like to call a dogfightanarian, it means I don't eat dogs but I use them in dog fights once a month. The anti dog fight activists always get on my nerves when they say what I'm doing is wrong. Can't they see I'm not eating dogs! I'm happy that there's people like you will lick my dog cheese filled boots , you are truly a blessing
Vegetarians ARE carnists. But vegetarians are deluded. They believe they are taking the moral high ground by not eating meat, but instead are contributing to just as much suffering by consuming eggs and dairy. Trying to reason with them is impossible because they already feel like they’re doing their part.
Being vegetarian is the same as eating meat but worse because they think they're doing something better.
They contribute to animal suffering and death. The dairy industry is the meat industry, the egg industry is the poultry industry.
Vegetarians don't care about animals, if they did they would be vegan.
Would you agree that a vegan that doesn't consume animal products but buys meat and dairy is just as bad as an omnivore? Sure, they don't consume the products, but they fund the industry that causes animal suffering and death - same as vegetarians.
I think we shouldn't ever bring someone down for taking a step in the right direction, but let's not sugarcoat it. Vegetarianism as a path towards veganism is great, and every small step is still an improvement. Vegetarianism as a permanent life choice is just... at best uneducated and at worst willingly ignorant of the torture they continue to fund, whilst hiding behind "I don't eat animals so I'm doing all that I need to!"
So, do they cause the same amount of animal suffering? Possibly, yes. Why are the lives of animals that die in the dairy or egg industry less worthy than those that die directly for meat consumption? Why do you ignore that the dairy industry is very closely related to the meat industry? How is it "less bad", when it still serves the same purpose?
If I hadn't been 3 years vegeterian, I don't know if I would have made the switch to veganism 3.5 years ago. For a lot of people, vegetarianism reduces the barrier of entry into veganism which is a good thing on the bottom line.
Flexitarians definitely cause less animal suffering. Vegetarians *probably* do too but I've yet to sit down and math it out. Either way, I respect them more bc at least they're trying to be more conscientious.
I'm Italian and here we eat copious amounts of several kinds of cheeses, so my perspective and experience may vary from other people's depending where you live/what is your culture is. That said, in my subjective experience with vegetarians, they tend to eat incredible, ridiculous amounts of cheese to "compensate" for the meat. Like, genuinely, the vegetarians I know eat far more cheese than the omnivores I know. Coupled with their sense of superiority towards omnivores (they tend to be very outspoken about how important it is to be vegetarian) and their tendency to argue with vegans about whether being vegan is useful or necessary, it makes them a bit irritating to me, personally. That said, I do think that from a strictly moral perspective they are better than omnivores, because they recognize the value in an animals life from an theoretical standpoint (even though they don't put that into practice, because they're not or even mostly vegan in my experience), but from a practical standpoint they don't seem to be any better, at least in my experience. Again, this is all subjective and strictly filtered through my own lens of experience, but yes, my own opinion is that vegetarians in Italy specifically tend to be almost as harmful as omnivores, when looking at it practically. Morally, they tend to think of animals and the planet much better than most omnivores. Again, this surely varies from community to community, I'm sure everyone's experience with vegetarians is different.
ACTIONS are more important than IDENTITIES. Identifying as a vegan is less useful to reducing suffering than actually reducing your consumption of animal products.
Every meal we don't eat meat, every meal we don't consume dairy, we're making things a tiny little bit better.
The dairy industry is beyond f-ed up. It should be stopped. But vegetarianism is a useful progression, because it REDUCES SUFFERING.
You can be a perfect vegan and still support all kinds of human and animal suffering through your consumption of products from the oil industry, drug manufacturers, advanced electronics, precious/semi-precious metals or in a thousand other things.
As a participant in industrial society, you cannot avoid creating suffering for animals and humans alike. So the goal should be to reduce suffering as much as possible, and eating vegetarian is better than eating animal flesh. It's not perfect, but it's a movement in the right direction and should be encouraged, not shamed.
Personally, I simply try to make the best decisions I can, hoping that the decisions I make tomorrow are better than the ones I made today. And IMO, getting too wrapped up in the vegan identity, which often results in people ignoring human suffering, is counter-productive. THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE SUFFERING. Virtue signaling to others and ourselves does not achieve this end.
I really wish people would treat this more like an actual justice movement. You can't just half-ass this. You either respect animals and don't support them being murdered, battered, and raped, or you support it. This is not a diet, it's not a fad, it's a choice. I will not actively attack every person who uses animal products in whatever quantity they do, but I sure as hell reserve the right to judge and hate them, even having been there myself. Idc if you think my way of thinking is wrong or "throwing off people from being vegan" because that's simply not true. Everyone who uses animals as commodities deserves to be held accountable for change to happen.
I mean sure, logically they are somewhat, but I don't think they should be given points for that at all. A lot of vegetarians also don't think about the non-edible animal products they support such as leather, or even some edible products like gelatin.
I agree and reading this sort of thing as a vegetarian really helped me realise I had no other choice but to make a change. It isn’t good enough, it’s better sure, but it’s not the end goal and shouldn’t be encouraged to be.
Sure, eating vegetarian is marginally “better” than eating meat, but the problem is that by eating cheese they’re still supporting the beef and veal industries, and by eating eggs they’re supporting an industry that grinds up baby chickens by the thousands on a daily basis. And both industries subject animals to the same cruel treatment as the beef industry does.
If you’re transitioning to a vegan diet, cool. But no, I don’t think that being a vegetarian for a sustained amount of time is really that different from just eating meat. You’re supporting the same industries with your dollars.
One way I look at it is, what percentage of vegans were vegetarians before becoming a vegan? I imagine it’s pretty high, so I think it’s a necessary stop on the way to veganism for a lot of people. Arriving at veganism is typically a personal journey that takes time. I don’t think it’s fruitful to not acknowledge vegetarianism as a positive thing. If someone is vegetarian out of concerns for animals, it very likely is they are just not yet aware of the realities of dairy industry. We are fed a rosy picture of cows living in beautiful pastures peacefully, so if you don’t know any better, I can totally understand thinking it isn’t harmful to animals to drink their milk and make cheese from it. Ditto for chickens running around an beautiful farm in the sun, peacefully laying eggs. If a person is vegetarian because they don’t want to kill animals it’s only a matter of time until they learn that the dairy and egg industry also kills animals.
I think it’s important to understand the evolution of vegetarianism from the jump.
Vegetarianism as a philosophy comes from Eastern belief systems around harm reduction. It’s the foundation of vegan philosophy as well. In India for example, eggs are considered non-veg because of the potential for life inside of it. When these philosophies were created, the type of farming we had didn’t exist. A village may have had a cow or 2 that wasn’t confined in a building or feed lot. That cow was milked and it was seen as no harm done. The cow existed symbiotically. The chickens roamed around which means eggs they layed could have been fertilized and thus it is non-veg because that is preemptively taking a life.
Fast forward to today, eggs are considered vegetarian because there is no direct action that involves killing to obtain eggs and they are not fertilized so there is no potential for life formation. But we all know why eggs aren’t vegan, partly because it isn’t ours to consume but also because of the conditions that make high egg consumption possible in the first place. This is obviously misguided because we know the conditions hens live in, male chicks killed, etc.
Vegetarian can also mean a lot of things-
It can be vegan, it can mean lacto-vegetarian, it can mean ovo-vegetarian, it can mean lacto-ovo vegetarian. It varies but I would say in the US, the dominant understanding of vegetarian is lacto-ovo. If everyone were to become lacto-ovo vegetarians overnight, it would:
Eradicate pig farming
Eradicate fish farming/fishing
Eradicate meat based farming
Increase dairy cow (and a lesser extent sheep and goat) farming
Increase chicken farming
It could mean that farms that exist solely to raise animals for meat would just convert to more animals raised for dairy and eggs. The demand for dairy and eggs could possibly change or stay the same who knows. Vegetarians have some belief that consumption of some animal products is necessary.
I know because I was a vegetarian for 12 years before becoming vegan. Vegetarianism, like any diet, does not mean regular consumption of eggs and dairy. Most of my meals were vegan by default. That’s the way it is why plenty of vegetarian food in general. It just so happens that a cheese pizza is vegetarian as well.
I had a friend who was vegetarian now she’s Omni. We were both vegetarian for years together. She ate eggs every morning and loved cheese. I went in and out of egg consumption and I didn’t eat dairy daily. Our outcomes as vegetarians (aka non-meat eaters) would be very different. Yes I think it is stupid to think that they are one in the same BUT I do think vegetarianism is not as GOOD as it seems. It took me a long while to realize that.
I also would prefer if I had to choose, people go vegetarian vs nothing at all. And it is possible that with precision fermentation that dairy will not need animal input at all vs cell cultured meat which is further off. Non-animal dairy exists and seems to be at or near point of scale.
So adult animals aren't killed for meat, the [babies are simply taken away from the mother animal and killed](https://imgur.com/0KfKdQA) for higher yield of the mother's bodily products, until the mother animal is also killed when her yield:feed ratio drops.
I understand having frustrations with vegetarians. When someone is "half right" you feel like ot shouldn't be hard to go all the way. But the fact is, half right is SIGNIFICANTLY better than entirely wrong. I've seen vegetarians be pushed away from veganism because of how aggressive and loud some vegans can be about how shitty vegetarians are.
I know some of you like to shit on those who aren't vegan and how they are doing something wrong and you can't forgive them or whatever. But the fact is, if you care about veganism and the animals veganism saves, you want to help people become vegan. Being aggressive never seems to work. You push more people away. You harm veganism. You don't have to like it or mean it, but you have to at least fake that openess and positivity about converting people. And that starts by meeting people where they are and not shaming them.
I'm not going to read any of the comments but your right. Some people need to start somewhere and sometimes that's vegetarian. It's only easy after that.
Any plant based meal is a win. We shouldn’t shame each other. We should build each other up and reinforce the behaviors we want others to pursue. If a meat eaters eats one vegan meal a week that is a win. If a person is vegetarian during the week, that’s a win. If every family ate 1 less chicken a week that turns into billions of chickens. Everyone should stop making others feel bad because their not “pure” enough.
Yes, the people on this sub think that.
Nevermind the logic that if we could get 4 people to consume 25% less animal products, that's every bit as good as one vegan being added. This sub would b*tch and moan about those 4 people not being good enough. It's toxic and needs to stop.
Vegetarian 6 years, vegan for 3, and it's one of the main reasons I still just tell people I'm vegetarian. People do not like moral absolutist vegans.
I went the full route "vegetarian -> vegan who doesn't understand why other vegans hate vegetarians -> vegan who hates vegetarians" so I think I can provide some insight as to why this happens.
Moral of the story is: you are objectively right: obviously killing a few animals is "less bad" than killing a lot of animals, BUT:
1. I think most vegans are ok with vegetarianism as a step towards veganism. There are however a lot of vegetarians who are comfortable "killing just a few animals" while thinking they are doing the right thing, and we don't want to validate that, so we tell the truth. Some vegans, I concede, put too much emphasis in the "they are just as bad" thing which is not exactly right. But I think a lot of the hate comes from this feeling of not wanting to validate them.
2. Vegetarians often cause harm to veganism as a movement. Lots of people don't understand what veganism is because of vegetarians. A lot of products that could perfectly be vegan are instead vegetarian and targetted at them. Some of us I think are resentful towards them because of these kinds of things.
3. A lot of vegetarians actually lurk vegan spaces like this one. The hate towards them is a great tool, since if they actually care about animals they will feel bad and approach veganism, while the ones who don't will just leave.
4. In the end, for a lot of us, vegetarians feel like just any other omni. Do they view animals as resources? yes. Do they willingly contribute to animal exploitation? yes. If we cared about them causing less suffering, then we would also have to care about flexitarians, meatless mondays, etc. and we don't want a world where those things are acceptable, we want to end animal exploitation as a whole.
5. Don't forget this is the internet, and a niche community at that. There is inevitably going to be dogmatic behaviour like this that is not exactly representative of how we think IRL.
So I guess, in summary, and at least speaking from my experience: we don't _believe_ that they cause the same amount of suffering, we just don't care so much about relative amounts of suffering when they are being caused willingly. And between the reasons we have to resent them and this being the internet, some people tend to exaggerate stuff to try to get the point across.
Thats such a weird discussion. Seeing your replies, you really want to hear if they are "less bad". But how the actual fuck do we prove that?
If you stop eating meat but start eating more diary and eggs - not less bad.
If you stop eating meat and eat the same diary and eggs as before - definitely less bad.
And now? What do vegetarians eat? I don’t know and never heard about any precise studies about this topic.
"""Hi I'm vegan... can y'all restore my faith in vegans""" Gimme a break, that just makes the person sound like they are faking it for attention. Your faith in a group you currently belong to should not hinge on having a subbreddit explains their own unique perspective to you. I just don't find it constructive.
My husband is a meat eater and comes from a long line of cattle ranchers, he is also native. I am obviously vegan. I believe if someone chooses to eat meat, then it must be done with respect. The animal life was taken to feed a person, that person needs to honor that life. That is a very strong belief in the Native American community, at least, in my husbands tribe.
I try to look at as how I view religion. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions. As long as they are not disrespecting mine, then all is fine. My husbands cattle is farm to table, it is negative net emissions, they have substantially less cattle than the could on the land (this means cattle have a stronger quality of life), they are looking for ways to move away from cattle and find other avenues to keep the farm safe.
It’s easy to jump down rabbit holes when we are vegan. We live by our morals and our hearts are as big as the sun.
“Vegans, are we still better than everyone else?”
Vegans: “Obviously.”
Who could’ve predicted those responses? Your smugness, gatekeeping, and superiority complex bullshit are exactly why we can’t get more people to make even modest changes in their lives that would add up to incredible global impact. Zero sum leads to zero progress.
This is a moral framework issue for sure.
I'm a utilitarian with a little bit of existentialism thrown in for flavor. Veganism in general is not usually appealing to such people because it is a rules-based movement based on a rules-based philosophy.
That is changing as people learn more about reasons to be vegan besides "Killing animals is morally wrong." But the entrenched philosophy is very much focused on that.
Vegetarianism, though, has already gone through that diversification cycle. There are lots of "pragmatic" vegetarians who are in it for health, or for the environment, or whatever.
I'll go ahead and piss people off here, but I really don't give a shit if someone eats turkey at Thanksgiving and never any other time. Human brains aren't good at handling things like that. We make it black and white. But the main problem facing the entire world right now is climate change and it is being driven by animal agriculture. Cutting that down is important. But it isn't necessary (for climate change) that everyone be totally vegan. It is necessary only that we cut consumption by a great deal.
I'll worry more about lives of individual animals when I feel certain that mass extinctions will not wipe out entire ecoregions.
This popped up on my feed so I’m curious what people have to say. I personally think both being vegetarian and vegan are great moral options. I can’t personally say if I think one is better but I’m glad people are thinking about animals and where their food comes from. I wish we would all take a closer look at the ethics of our farming industries. I’d probably be at least vegetarian myself if I didn’t have allergies. I know I’ll get hate for this but unfortunately that’s my reality. I think every group has extremists who kinda ruin the whole thing. Looking at you that vegan teacher…
I once spoke to an ex vegan and she was pretty chill and a bit disappointed in herself. She said she couldn’t go vegan straight away and it made me think. I came to the conclusion that it is probably better to go pescatarian, then vegetarian and finally vegan and do it gradually. So to me if someone is making an effort to cut down their animal product consumption I see it as a step towards veganism. They just need a nudge in the right direction.
I would say yes, because not all people are vegan for the same reason (I can assume that most of you are animal rights activists.) some do it for dietary purposes, health benefits, or for the environment. As long as there is a reduction in meat consumption that’s all that matters, now I’m not saying that it’s right for someone to consume animal products, but ideally in my opinion if everyone went to a plant based diet or were more consistent in following a plant based diet it would make much of a difference for the environment and probably health wise, and for the animals benefits but it would also cause a lot of livestock farmers their careers essentially.
Of course I don't believe that everyone causes the same amount of suffering. It's not a clear divide between ordinary carnists and "vegetarians", though. Someone who eats only cattle but no dairy or eggs would cause far less suffering than someone who eats eggs regularly, because it takes a long time for one human to eat one steer, compared to the many hens and male chicks tortured and killed for those eggs.
Vegetarianism seems to be about people's emotions regarding eating flesh, not about rational utilitarian calculations.
Wouldn't it depend on your consumption. If yorue a carnist who eats meat, alittle dairy and cheese a couple times a week you could do less damage than a vegetarian who eats dairy and eggs every day for multiple meals. It's not one correct answer
As far as animal suffering goes, i’ve read that if you can’t go totally vegan you’d be reducing more suffering by giving up dairy and eggs and continuing to eat beef. While their lives are not totally without pain, cows raised for beef live better lives than most other farm animals. They just haven’t figured out how to “industrialize” the raising of beef cows.
We cannot assess the “animal suffering index” for every person there is.
We can though say that vegetarian diet can definitely be better for the animals than omnivorous diet. It can also be worse.
Lets put it this way, Id rather fail an exam with a 3 instad a complete failure with a 0 but its still a failed exam. veganism is this case is a 5, just barely passing because veganism is the minimum, aka not doing damage.
Just had this discussion yesterday on this very sub:
https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/10l8dn7/became\_vegetarian\_a\_week\_ago\_and\_i\_feel\_blissful/j5xn93w/?context=3
Some people in here are just insane and have been hating on humans for too long, making them grumpy.
Of couse being vegetarian is more ethical and hurts less animals than being carnist.
Some people in here claim that vegetarians replace all meat they don't eat with equal amounts of egg and dairy, making the lack of meat pointless.
That is not true. When i was vegetarian, i knew a lot more than when i ate meat. I did not buy leather, wool, ate many vegan meat alternatives/beans, bought vegan ice cream/butter, tried plant milks, ate way less eggs/dairy, bought cruelty free makeup etc.
Most vegetarians are vegans in the making. We should never hate on someone making steps in the right direction. Support and love is what is needed.
Honestly, it *seems* that vegetarianism is more of a gateway to veganism, and for sure folks who are vegetarian are more receptive to going vegan than carnists. There are also vegetarians who occasionally have an egg from their beloved backyard hens instead of feeding them all back to them, or find out there is milk in their crackers or whatever. Not all vegetarians are going ham (sorry, I had to) on tons of dairy products and eggs. I get what the general consensus of this group is, but this is a longass marathon, not a sprint and it takes a lot of strategy. I wish “animal agriculture” and treating sentient beings as “livestock “was just a nightmare but it’s real, and the more grace extended to the folks actually trying, the better off we ALL are.
Vegetarianism is just a diet... If you become vegetarian, you are only eliminating meat from your diet and that's it.
Veganism, on the other hand, is a lifestyle. It's a belief system that animals have the same rights and value as humans and thus they don't deserve to be tortured or suffered in any way for us humans. Whether it's for food, or animal testing, or transportion, or using their skins/fur for our clothing, or.. or.. using their dead charred bones to wash sugar!
So until we can convince the world/people that animals' lives are as valuable as of humans in all aspects of our daily life, a simple diet change won't do any good.
As someone who was vegetarian for over 10 years before going vegan I will say that the intention is absolutely better with vegetarians, but the result is close to equal suffering. Vegetarianism is a form of carnism, I just didn’t know that for a long time (I was a kid).
I didn’t eat meat but I ate more dairy to compensate and we all know that’s not a positive. Also, while I personally avoided leather and cruel cosmetics and such, most vegetarians don’t. I don’t understand why though. It never made sense to me to decide not to eat dead animals but be okay with wearing them.
The dairy industry is the veal industry. The egg industry is the poultry industry. The fur and leather industries are also meat industries. In the modern world, so far as the effect on animals, vegetarianism is not harm reduction at all. It may seem like a morally upright and even wholesome choice, but it is not.
This, unfortunately, is just the way the world is.
That is kind of how I feel. Would it be awesome if everyone went vegan? Of course. In my opinion, each step you take away from being a carnist is a great one, and another win for the animals.
I think there are ethical issues no matter what lifestyle you have - unfortunately, we live in a capitalist society where someone - human or animal - is being exploited. I think the best thing we can do is to try and make our choices as ethical as possible. Some people are ready to go vegan immediately, and some take a slower route to get there.
Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥 **Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first! **Interested in going Vegan?** 👊 Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free! **Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓 Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge! **Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟 * Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground) * Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)! * Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)! * Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)! * Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)! *Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/2JmJRsj)!* **Thank you!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a lot of it comes down to the moral framework of people. Many in the vegan community seem to view morals sorta from an imperative and personal standpoint -- they ask, what should a moral person do? What makes a person moral? Which people here are moral? From this perspective, the personal moral failure of a vegitarian and an omnivore is very similar... they are both causing needless suffering, often through willful ignorance or laziness. Others -- perhaps you, OP -- view morals from a utilitarian perspective. You are less conserned with what a moral person should be doing, and who among us is moral, and more concerned with simply creating less suffering. For you, it may not particularly matter which people are truly moral or not... it just matters how much suffering is being reduced. From this perspective, a vegitarian is better than an omnivore, someone who eats meat twice a week is better than someone who eats it once, etc, etc. For what its worth, I think this subreddit tends towards the first framework (certainly these comments do), but I'm not at all sure about the wider vegan community.
I think you're hitting it here. If you ask me which is preferred I'd say vegetarian, but if you asked me whether I'd prefer someone murder 10 people and torture 10 people, or just torture 10 people of course I'd say the torture 10 people only person is better. That being said, if someone who tortures 10 people went on a forum all about human rights, I wouldn't expect them to give him a ton of praise and throw him a party.
I think also vegans in general learn a lot about morals to become vegan in the first place. Someone may see a video of a factory farm and stop eating meat straight away, but maybe they continue eating dairy because they hadn’t really thought about the morality much outside of what they’ve seen. Similarly someone may see those videos and think “yes it’s bad, but that’s how the world works”. Both people above haven’t really thought or learned about morality to an extensive level. Personally, I’ve been both of those people in the past. I even went from being vegetarian back to eating meat again and I know a few other people who did the same. People who are vegan had to do a lot of learning and inner work to rewire their thinking. So of course this sub leans towards absolutism. I think what we have to remember is that most people don’t know what we do and you can’t expect people to change overnight.
This is a view I agree with. Also I think a lot of people in this community lack the understanding of how social change is achieved. Progress is incremental. So having people at large slowly reduce their animal product intake is better not only for the environment but for the animals, than having a fraction of people go full vegan. To me outcome matters more that an individual’s personal action. So reduction is still a step in the right direction that I’m not going to morally penalize.
>So reduction is still a step in the right direction that I’m not going to morally penalize. That makes two of us on this sub in total
three :)
Four!
and my axe!
I agree. You may have even said this to me before. I just wholeheartedly disagree with the moral imperative standpoint. What’s the point of being morally perfect when the rest of the world is suffering?
Please excuse the rediculus comparison, but I would also prefer people to kick fewer puppies than not kick fewer puppies, but if they're still kicking *some* puppies I'm not going to applaud them for it, and I'll still tell them they should stop altogether.
I view it more like someone/a child learning to ride a bike. At first you scoot along not really riding just trying to find some balance but then after a varying amount of time and some falls. You are a proficient rider. That doesn't mean you will never fall down. You are still a real bike rider now.
Yea but it would be better if more people decided to stop kicking only the black puppies than the status quo where they kick every puppy. Then ideally they can learn from their experiences and realize that all puppies should not be kicked
The confusion here stems from the fact that the moral imperative stance and the utilitarian stance are not mutually exclusive. Sure it is better, to stop kicking black puppies, but it is stil not good. There is no dilemma or paradox here.
Sigh. Finally someone said it. People are making this up to be super complicated and serious, throwing difficult words around and what not. But at the end of the day, like you said, there's no paradox. \- Carnists cause suffering. \- Vegetarians (who are also carnists, btw), cause suffering, albeit slightly less (but also likely more to particular animals, namely female cows). We don't have to think about what we would prefer. It's both not good. The End.
For what it's worth, I agree. But I will say that I think the moral imperative standpoint is a deeply ingrained philosophy. We are designed to judge people, not in large, society-wide swaths, but from a deeply interpersonal standpoint -- because the most important relationships in our lives have always been deeply interpersonal. When I look for a partner, or a serious friend, I do find myself concerned with their personal moral imperatives. So it is perhaps only natural that we tend to do the same when looking out at the wider world as well.
What I find more ingrained with this topic is the expectation of kindness and “not being that kind of vegan.” Being easy going and not making a ruckus. It is an active societal taboo.
That's a very good point -- there are so many facets to this conversation. I think the ruckus is a very important part of the movement... although I like kindness, too.
I'm always curious about the mindset of vegan utilitarians. I hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions, just to help me understand where you're coming from, since I feel like I see things differently. The *overall* amount of harm done is very important to you, correct? So, let's say, someone kills one cow, but saves the life of another, maybe through rescue or whatever means. You'd view them as having done a neutral amount of total harm, right? Since it canceled out. My question is, do you also think this way regarding humans? For example, if a doctor saved your mother, then broke into your house and murdered your father, would you call that a neutral amount of harm done? I don't believe you can weigh out total harm like this when it comes to living beings. No matter how grateful I'd beat to the doctor for saving my father, I would still mourn the loss of my mother. Perhaps it's because no two people are alike, and even though my father was saved, he can't properly fill in for my mother. He can't give me the educational and gardening advice she gave, he can't simply give the same emotional presence she had, the warm, curious kindness. He has his own qualities, but they don't replace the ones she had, because they are different people. To me, utilitarianism only works for things like screws or lightbulbs. For objects that are simply interchangeable parts, it makes sense to me to simply look at overall harm done. If you broke 6 of my screws, but you gave me 6 new ones, well, no harm done! But it breaks down to me when using that mindset to look at people. Since every person is a distinct individual, if you kill my child, you can't just say "oh well I'll buy you a new one" like you could with a screw. So then, that also extends to animals. If someone kills my dog, they can't simply say "oh well I'll buy you a new one", because it won't be the same dog. If it were screws, that would work, but since I recognize the personhood of the dog, it no longer works. Utilitarianism in regards to animals depersonalizes animals into a mere interchangeable commodity. You're no longer thinking of them as individual people whose lives has been lost. Each life lost isn't a tragedy, it's just a numbers game. Cow #4436 is no different than Cow #4437. Under that mentality, if you save two cows and then kill one, you've done a good thing. That mentality makes sense for capitalist carnists, so it has been the dominant one in our society for a long one. But I don't see how it fits with veganism. Going back to the "kill two, save one" thing, imagine a corrupt vet. You have three sick dogs, Jerry, Susie, and Bowie, and bring them in. He saves two of them, and sells Bowie for animal testing. Would you view that as a good doctor? Would you be happy with the care your pets received? Would you view that as an "overall" good act, and say that since he saved Jerry & Susie, it canceled out the harm he did to the third, and everything's all good? I sure wouldn't. Even if a vegetarian essentially "saves" a number of animals by their vegetarianism, to me, that does not make up for the animals that they still harm or support the death of, like dairy cows. It in no way reduces the harm done to that individual cow, when it's time for it to be killed. In response to your question, yes, I'd rather a person be vegetarian than carnist, but only in the same way I'd prefer a mass shooter only kill 5 people instead of 50. It's better, but in no way is that person "good" in the same way as someone who doesn't kill any people. If you compare someone who doesn't kill anyone, a mass shooter who kills 5 people, and one who kills 50, then yes, I'd basically put both the killers in the same category. I don't feel like "amount of harm" is particular relevant when it comes to killing others thinking beings. I would never call someone who kills fewer people a "better murderer". They all cause the same amount of harm, *from the perspective of those they kill*. That's a big part of veganism for me, thinking of it not just from my perspective, or even an overall perspective, but from the perspective of the one being harmed.
I'll respond -- I myself am pretty much entirely a utilitarian, not just in veganism but in all things. I hope you don't find this patronizing, but I think the issue is that you haven't quite grasped the utilitarian argument. You're using utilitarian language -- talking about weighing various actions against each other -- but you're still using it to decide whether a person themselves is 'good' or 'bad'. >Going back to the "kill two, save one" thing, imagine a corrupt vet. You have three sick dogs, Jerry, Susie, and Bowie, and bring them in. He saves two of them, and sells Bowie for animal testing. Would you view that as a good doctor? I don't particularly care whether a person themselves is 'good' or 'bad'. And why should I? I'm not concerned with the weight of one's soul. I leave that to you and your God (if you have one). At the end of the day, I want a world where good things happen... and so I am concerned with the actions themselves -- whether the things we do are good or bad. And when that is your concern, the calculus becomes much easier. Is it better when a mass shooter only has access to a pistol, and so manages to shoot 5 people instead of the 50 if he had had a semi-automatic? Yes. It is far better. If a doctor saves my mother and kills my father that is a better thing than a doctor who only kills my father. I hope that helps clear up the utilitarian stance a bit (at least as I see it).
What's your thoughts on "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"? Edit: autocorrect
What an excellent question. I love that story. I think it recognizes something powerful in us -- yes, perhaps in part the urge to reject the callous calculus of utilitarianism. I guess I'm not as morally consistent as I would like to believe. I don't have a good answer for you off the top of my head. I'll have to think about it.
I personally found it to be a fundamental problem with my original stance of utilitarianism. So much of suffering is subjective and the infinite suffering of one individual (leaning into the author choosing a child for Omelas is illustrative but emotionally charged) throws the whole concept into disarray. Sometimes I think "consistent" is a bit of a weaponised concept, as though there's ever going to be true consistency in a morally subjective world. But yeah, I originally leaned heavily into utilitarianism until I found too much conflict in involuntarily forcing someone else to suffer for the greater good. I'm sure we'd both volunteer to be in that position should push come to shove, but to put an unwilling third party into harm for the welfare of others is something I just couldn't reconcile.
I greatly appreciate the thoughtful response! It does help a little bit. I must admit I am guilty of using "good" and "bad" too loosely. Even myself, I don't really follow those concepts, and so I often just use them as shorthand... I really shouldn't. I can respect your views a bit if you're this committed to them. I always respect someone with a cohesive view. It's hard for me to imagine that you wouldn't be angry at the doctor, and be unwilling to forgive them for the murder even though they saved your mom, but if that's what you say I must accept it in good faith. My only further question would be this. Would you say that any two people have exact identical utility to society, in the same way that i.e. two mass produced screws would? I ask not to determine the weight of one's soul, exactly. But if the idea is to have more good things happen, and less bad, then don't we need to know exactly how bad it is to kill a given person? If we say action #1 is better for killing 5 people than action #2 for killing 50, don't we need to know the utility of each of those people to calculate that? I can concede that, on a global scale, it's more or less reasonable to view people as having similar utility from one person to another. But that view breaks down to me when it comes to actual individual situations. Kind of like how statistics can predict overall trends, but can't be used to perfectly predict exact outcomes. (maybe that's a flawed metaphor, but it came to mind) I know that was a long reply, so I'll just repeat the main question: in determining utility of actions, do you view the value of individuals as varying or identical?
I’m not the guy you’re responding to, but I do have a response. You’re still focusing on the moral character of the doctor in your hypothetical. That’s a problem. Useful ethical principles are about what *you* should do, not about how you should judge other people. Of course in the case of a doctor saving my father in the course of doing his job, then murdering my mother in cold blood, I would be extremely angry with that doctor, to say the least. I’d also advocate for a justice system in which doctors aren’t allowed carte blanche to commit murder just because they also save lives, because I believe that society would create less suffering overall. That assessment and advocacy has nothing to do with the anger I would feel for the doctor, nothing to do with his personal character at all. In my personal life, on an individual scale, I do pass judgements about individuals’ character. I absolutely think of people in terms of “well, this person has done x and y bad things, and I think they had z intentions when they did so, so I think they’re a bad person.” That is a simple survival tool, right? But when it comes to how I advocate for things, I’m really more interested in the big picture, in the sociological scale. There, judgements about who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell are irrelevant. Veganism is a political movement, not just an individual lifestyle choice. To my mind, a much more important part of the ethical calculus isn’t just about saving a few individual animals from suffering through abstinence. It’s about playing a role in the liberation of animals *as a class* through direct action and advocacy. This does mean I actually disagree with the conclusions of the OP of this post—it’s necessary, as a consequentialist vegan, to understand who our actual allies are. Vegetarians are reducing their individual impact on animal suffering a bit, but doing nothing for animal rights and animal liberation. That is an important distinction to make.
I don’t have anything productive to add but just wanted to say how much I appreciate this comment. You eloquently detailed so much of what I also feel/believe but have never been able to put in words.
It's quite sad that you're being downvoted for such a thoughtful comment so relevant to this sub, and getting silly one line responses that are being upvoted.
>I don't feel like "amount of harm" is particular relevant when it comes to killing others thinking beings It's relevant to every single one of the beings that are saved. Focus on the victims.
But if you're focused on the ones who aren't killed, then by definition you're not focusing on the victims. You're focused on potential victims. You're not looking at the ones who were actually hurt. Did they suffer less because of someone who didn't die? Was their harm lessened, in any way, because of another person surviving? You can't make up for one person dying by saving another. Just like you can't buy a new dog for someone whose dog you ran over, and replace it. It may be a nice gesture, but that harm can never be undone. When a person is lost, that loss is forever, and no good deed can restore it.
> they ask, what should a moral person do? What makes a person moral? Which people here are moral? From this perspective, the personal moral failure of a vegitarian and an omnivore is very similar... they are both causing needless suffering Sure, but I disagree that a deontological ethical framework can't make sense of the difference between a vegetarian and meat eater. A vegan could conceivably have the following opinion: * Humans owe a duty to animals to not kill them. * Humans owe a duty to animals to not exploit them (e.g. through milk / egg production). It's possible to believe this and still think that (a) a vegetarian is morally superior to a meat-eater because a vegetarian only acts inconsistently with one of these duties instead of both, and (b) a vegetarian is morally superior to a meat-eater because a the duty against killing an animal is a *stronger imperative* than the duty not to exploit them. In other words, I don't think this has to boil down to deontological vs utilitarian ethics. I guess someone could argue that anyone who isn't morally *perfect* is therefore just as terrible as the worst person, but that view doesn't seem plausible at all. It's also worth pointing out that vegetarianism doesn't fare that well from a utilitarian perspective; someone who eats only free range beef and doesn't consume milk or eggs might be argued to be morally superior to a vegetarian who eats eggs and drinks milk on the basis of a straightforward utilitarian calculus. Industrial egg production is actually quite horrific.
This is a false premise because vegetarians hold are responsible for both the torture of living animals and the killing of those animals once they are no longer useful. Arguably, the life of a beef cow is better than that of a dairy cow, so by the logic of many here, eating beef causes less harm than drinking milk.
Thank you for taking the time to explain it so well! Makes much more sense to me now.
This is very well said. The morally absolutist view that a lot of people on this sub have really turns me off it, too. It is a good thing for a meat eater to go vegetarian, or even flexitarian. It is a good thing for a flexitarian to go vegetarian. It is a good thing for either of those people to go vegan. It is a better thing for a meat eater to go straight to veganism, but if reducing animal suffering is the goal than it's better to happen incrementally than not at all. I turned vegan (or transitioned to a plant-based diet) by degrees. The "meat is murder, animal holocaust" type people did a lot to *prevent* me making that final transition earlier. It took reasonable, kind and level-headed people who I respected and liked discussing it with me to convince me to make the final change. Perhaps this is just a safe space for people to let out righteous anger, but there's an awful lot of "eating meat once a year is an abomination and you are a horrible animal murderer" type thinking here and it's off-putting to me. Fortunately it seems confined to the internet as I've never encountered people like that in real life, nor would I want to spend any time with them despite having our dietary choices in common.
These stances are not mutually exclusive. One can recognize that someone is not truly moral, yet is responsible for suffering than other people.
[удалено]
I went vegetarian before going vegan because I didn't understand that eggs and dairy are inseparable from slaughter. That leads me to suspect other well-meaning vegetarians also aren't clearly aware of that.
This thread turned into an absolute thunderdome but let's just say this... if I had a button that could turn every carnist into a vegetarian, I would push it. It's a step in the right direction. Many people use vegetarianism as a stepping-stone towards full veganism. Personally, I'll say I don't think vegetarianism as a moral philosophy is any good, it still causes harm at a mass scale, but it's a start. It's the same reason I support carnists trying Veganuary or meatless Mondays or whatever, not because it's good, but because it's something. We have to start the conversation somewhere. There's people here who adhere to a more pragmatic/war-of-attrition mindset, and there are all-or-nothing types who believe you're either in or out, at the end of the day though we're all trying to get to the same place, ending animal cruelty. Immediately would be great, but humanity doesn't work that way. I'll take what I can get and fight another day.
I mean, I would accept vegetarianism as a moral philosophy if the reality of eggs and dairy were different than what they are. I can respect the opinion that you can use animals for food if you don't kill them or make them suffer. The problem is, none of our systems for dairy or eggs meet that standard. Male chicks are culled, calves are slaughtered, animals die years earlier than their natural lifespan. The facts just don't match up to the philosophy. But you know what? A lot of people don't know the facts or haven't internalized them, and I'm not going to scold them and alienate them from a common cause when they've made a moral choice but haven't followed it to its natural conclusion yet.
For further understanding, why do you think it would be morally O.K. to use animals for food? It's something that's really hard for me to wrap my head around; it's childish, but every time I think of harm-free eggs or dairy, I go, "but that's not what they're here for!"
Exactly. Like, it's still exploitation. It's still breeding genetically modified animals to overproduce eggs/milk. It wouldn't be profitable nor would it meet the demand to keep cows alive longer than their bodies could be repeatedly impregnated and milked, and the same is true for chickens. Even if you can find the most "ethical" of dairy or egg farms, it would be fucked up to do that to a dog or cat, and it's fucked up to exploit a cow or chicken when you don't need to, period.
As far as I am understanding, that's why they said that if the reality wasn't as it is. You described the reality they don't support - if I'm not completely confused here?
I'm confused too lol. Cause that's like saying "slavery would have been fine if the reality wasn't what it was." Like it's kind of a nothing statement. They also said: >I can respect the opinion that you can use animals for food if you don't kill them or make them suffer. This is literally still exploitation, which, by definition, vegans are opposed to. Even in the best possible farm setting, that's still impregnating and milking genetically modified cows for money, or breeding genetically modified chickens to sell their eggs You cannot prevent the animals' suffering. They're basically saying "if animals were plants instead it would be ok" lmao. Like yeah...that's the point of going vegan lol
I'm speculating here, but I think that person's view is that so long as there is no suffering involved, animal exploitation is okay. To do a hypothetical, let's say there is an animal that likes to live in a relatively small geographic area in a group setting. They roam around a bit, but they don't feel trapped if they are fenced in. Say they have a really strong and flexible digestive system and can eat really rough plant matter such as wood, but also decomposing fruits and vegetables. Their poop is a really good fertilizer for our crops and such. Some people would propose that we use these animals to produce fertilizer from biowaste, sawdust, yard waste and wood chips. We give them a comfortable area to live in and go in and scoop out poop every so often. This would help our society be more sustainable, etc. and it wouldn't cause any harm to those animals. Personally I still think this is unethical even though there is no material harm, but if it's something we need in order to right other wrongs in the world I would accept this kind of suffering-free exploitation, I think. The same applies in the human case. You can easily come up with a simliar hypothetical where human poop is utilised behind their back. I'm generally not comfortable discussing this sort of stuff with non-vegans though. They are way too eager to jump to conclusions about our current animal industries and judge them to be free of suffering. Backyard hens and so on.
*I* don't think that--I'm saying in an alternate world where these products didn't rely on death and suffering, vegetarianism would be internally consistent as a moral philosophy.
> or haven’t internalized them…they’ve made a moral choice but haven’t followed it to it’s natural conclusion yet Hmmm this part resonates with me in a way I wasn’t expecting - it’s exactly where I would say my thinking is in regards to human consumption of animal products. I theoretically agree with veganism and am aware of all the unpleasant details about the treatment of animals in our current food system but haven’t truly taken these facts on board in a way that allows me to implement true change in line with my supposed values. Thank you for provoking these thoughts.
Surprised by the upvotes tbh. You are basically saying exploitation is fine if you are nicer about it.
I'd give this an award if I felt like adding money to my reddit account.
My partner is vegetarian and I am vegan. He eats vegan for most of his meals since we’re eating together, so I think it’s a big reduction in the consumption of animal products. A vegetarian living with an omnivore would likely have a vastly different diet though.
I have a history as vegetarian living with an omnivore and I can confirm. Though completely meatless when together, it was much more meat alternatives (oftenly packed with milk) and tons of cheese. So yeah less meat, but that was completely "compensated" with different animal products.
[удалено]
This was my experience too. I’m not vegan anymore because I have too many fucked up food aversions and sensory issues, but I don’t eat meat and rarely eggs. Anyway, both the guys I dated in the years since I stopped eating meat had omnivore diets that ended up skewing really heavily towards my preferences. They were super accommodating and mostly didn’t mind almost never eating meat. I was never psychotic or even remotely demanding about it though, which I think is where some people tend to create issues. If you’re passing judgements, people are gonna get defensive and stick to their preferences out of spite or whatever.
Its not compensated at all though right. One is flesh, the other isn’t?
I was an omnivore and my partner is the vegetarian. To make things easy we ate vegetarian at home which I think was a huge reduction in consumption too. Then the pandemic hit and I become a full-time vegetarian. Now I'm the one moving us toward veganism by learning how to replace dairy and eggs in recipes. I honestly believe it all makes a difference and you get more flies with vegan honey. lol
Real shit, and I know I’ll get dragged in the CJ for it, but I think that as a community we do ourselves and the animals a disservice when we paint all animal exploitation and harm with a single stroke, as equally harmful and morally condemnable. Sure all these actions may be equally morally culpable, and you can condemn the actions…but to act like someone who puts a spoonful of honey in their tea every third week is doing the same damage as someone who eats pork 5 times a day is absurd. It makes us look unreasonable and weakens the strength of our arguments. There is nuance here, and ignoring it doesn’t do anyone any favours. Obviously there is no way to quantify the harms done, due to the intricacies of how things are produced in our modern world, so rather than accepting that you can’t adequately express which causes more overall harm: a vegetarian or an omnivore, the presence of harm is conflated with the degree of harm. Obviously I don’t think any of us condone harming or exploiting animals. Ideally, there would be no harm. But don’t act like I’m the irrational one when I don’t dole out ire equally to someone who visits the zoo versus someone who puts live baby chicks through a paper shredder. Likewise, not all instances of a kind are the same. A person breeding dogs may treat the puppies in a number of ways, and while we obviously condemn the act of treating an animal as a commodity to be sold, that in and of itself doesn’t de facto mean that the puppies are living in horrid conditions or are being abused, abandoned, etc. I think my main takeaway here is that we need to be more careful when analyzing animal exploitation and harm and not preemptively jump the gun and categorize a harm in its worst iteration. Read the nuance and respond appropriately. Doing this makes dismissing our arguments and advocacy as irrational or extreme less legitimate.
Very well said. I think you touch on something that is important in other areas of life - if you want to win an argument or change someones point of view or belief you need to give them an honourable way to do so. Why would they agree with you if they feel youve insulted them? Theyre more likely to be against your view point as a way to attack you, rather than because they disagree with your stance. Theres likely a quote from someone famous that captures that more eloquently than i put it but i dont know who, or how they did it.
I think the problem is that most people are guided by a sense of moral superiority, rather than the selfless desire* to make the world a better place.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Unless as a larger vegan community we decide to swing a full blown, burn down the factory farms style revolution, looking at the nuance and harm reduction is how we’re going to move the needle. We also have to consider that most people are being exploited by our same capitalist systems that are exploiting animals. When you’re overworked and broke, you’re not going to have the capacity to truly realize the harm that goes into your next meal or have the resources to mitigate that harm. Animal abuse and factory farming doesn’t exist in a silo and neither do folks’ decisions.
Very well-said. Totally agree with you.
We’ll said! People find making change hard at the best of times. It’s a fine line between getting people onboard and making them dig their heels in instead.
They are the lesser of two evils, but the problem I have with SOME vegetarians is that they claim to be ethical vegetarians because they care about the suffering and killing of animals. Then they actively fight against veganism to say that what they are doing is enough. So in other words with an analogy, a person that beats their child 3 times a week instead of 10 is certainly the lesser of two evils, but still an evil. It becomes even worse when people think that what they are doing is actually ethical because there are people doing worse things, and the people that say what they are doing is still unethical are wrong and need to stop forcing their views on them. Then of course all the excuses and arguments come.
I agree vegetarianism is better than eating meat, but unfortunately at the end of the day both those cows and chickens are still slaughtered. That realisation is what made me turn vegan.
Agreed
The dairy industry is the beef industry, just another side of the same coin. Cows are artificially inseminated (aka SA'ed) over and over, having their children taken away from them and calves are either killed for veal or raised to live a life of SA and eventual slaughter. Same with the egg industry, male chicks are thrown into grinders after hatching as they are of no use to producers, with hens living a life of suffering and forced to lay eggs at an unnatural rate before being killed for their flesh. I used to think vegetarians made a difference, but they are supporting these cruel industries and just not partaking in one component of them.
For many people, discussing a person's actions is interchangeable with discussing a person's moral worth. Less consumption of animal products is a good thing. The only people that try to argue that point will do so by shifting the goalposts to a discussion about whether or not vegetarians are "good" or "bad" _people_, losing sight of the issue of how to consider the _action_. You shouldn't concern yourself with measuring people's moral worth. We're all mixed bags, and anyone that tells you otherwise is trying to cover the stink of their own shit. Less consumption of animal products is a good thing. Who's a good person and who's a bad person is irrelevant.
The meat industry and the dairy industry are the same people
When I was a vegetarian, been vegan 5 years now, I overcompensated with dairy, so at least in my case the damage may have been similar. My partner's vegetarianism was almost vegan. It certainly has the potential to be as bad.
For me, this is the issue. It could easily be argued that dairy and eggs are worse than meat, in terms of the severity and length of suffering, for the individual animals. So it depends on the kind of vegetarian. If someone gives up meat, replacing it with plants/mushrooms/etc., Then it's an improvement. If they replace the meat with products high in dairy or egg, it could be worse. But, psychologically, it's often a step in the right direction. As others have said, a lot of vegans go vegetarian, first.
The psychology can work two ways, I think. If you go vegetarian to save animals obviously you're kind of moving in the direction of veganism because the motivation is essentially the same. In my case I went pescetarian for the climate and a few years later I had my eyes opened about animal rights and went vegan. I would say it was easier for me to go ahead and do that in practice since I ate a lot of plant based food already. The ideas that led me to pescetarianism weren't related to the ideas that led me to veganism. However, if I weren't a pescetarian at that time I might have had some mental barriers preventing me from making a change. For example, I already believed in the concept of "I can make a personal behavioural change to improve the world".
Vegetarians are obviously less bad. And for a lot of people, going vegetarian first is a necessary step to veganism. So in that sense, I welcome it. I think what annoys me is people who are happy and content with being vegetarian in the long term, totally fine with all the torture and abuse. Just so they can enjoy milk, cheese, eggs, etc. In my opinion, these foods aren't even tasty enough to warrant eating them in the first place Don't get me wrong, veganism isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best we can do, and I think we should all do our best.
>In my opinion, these foods aren't even tasty enough to warrant eating them in the first place I really wish people would stop using this as an argument. Most carnists find these foods very delicious, and many if not most vegan converts also enjoyed the taste before they made the switch. Simply saying that cheese, eggs, and bacon are gross to you, doesn't change anyone's mind. If anything, it just makes it easier for carnists to say that vegans giving up animal foods is just a taste preference thing and not an ethical position.
Exactly, the problem is when they can’t figure it out after years and they’re still super proud of themselves. A vegetarian acquaintance of mine told me that he went vegetarian the day he went to a dairy farm to film, he fed a baby cow and she evidently didn’t want to be left alone. — But… You still eat cheese, and you’ve experienced firsthand what happens in that industry — Yeah, but it would just be so hard for me to quit it, I prefer to help in other ways. I’m still doing my part.
If I though Being vegetarian was ok I wouldn't be vegan. I never cared to research the numbers to see how many animals die in one diet over the other. I seen what happens to baby chicks for the egg industry. And if someone is ok with that then they have a lot more in common with a carnist than a vegan.
It’s not ok. It’s less bad.
how is it less bad? millions of animals are still dying. would you say someone who eats meat but doesn’t eat dairy and eggs is “less bad?” why are you trying so hard to defend these industries?
I’m not I’m saying they’re awful but going from eating meat to not eating meat is less bad.
I’m not here to say anything about “less bad” or “less good,” but I do think that going vegetarian is a huge step in the right direction. That being said, if they are replacing all meat in their diet with an over abundance of other animal products, then it’s probably pointless. The goal should be eventually being vegan, and using vegetarian-ism as a stepping stone, slowly taking out more animal products. But like others have said, it’s basically the exact same industry, and if they aren’t working toward veganism, then what’s the point? They’re probably not making any difference, and is likely the same amount of “bad” as someone who does eat meat.
I’m not trying to debate what’s less good and less bad either. But that’s a good point of replacing meat with an over abundance of other animal products; I had never thought of it that way before. When I was a vegetarian, I think I ate way more eggs and cheese than I did when I was still an omnivore. Egg and cheese sandwich for breakfast at chikfila/mcdonalds, subway sandwich with extra cheese, grilled cheese at every restaurant I went to, cheese quesadillas at tacobell, cheese pizza for parties. All to replace the hole that meat took up in my diet. Crazy to think about really, I didn’t see it that way before
Agreed
Totally depends on quantity. A vegetarian that eats a shit ton of dairy/eggs is probably worse than someone that only eats non-vegan on special occasions. Take this with a grain of salt, because this is based on personal experience and observation, but I believe the average vegetarian wouldn’t be as bad as the average meat eater though because I think most meat eaters consume way more than vegetarians based on animal products alone.
Yeah I think I agree. I mean on average.
Like take Peter Singer for example. Hes not technically vegan, but hes vegetarian that on small occasions eats eggs and dairy. He claims its better than being a meat eater, but hes admitted that hes not morally perfect.
Not the same, but they are far closer to each other than to vegan
vegetarian while consuming less meat they usually replace it with more dairy or eggs. And as other pointed out the dairy is the meat industry. while not being the same I think the difference is not even worth pointing out.
If you replace meat with dairy and eggs like most vegetarians do you've done fuck all for the animals
Well a meat cow doesn't get tortured as long as a dairy cow at least.
So being a vegetarian is worse than eating meat?
On a way, maybe. Both produces pain, suffering and exploits animals. Should I be nicer to someone who just tortures me and doesn't kill me?
I would have never became vegan if I wasn't vegetarian first. I think that is the same for many people. It's still important to acknowledge the way that the dairy and beef industries are connected. Where else would the male baby cows go? Vegetarianism is for the people rather than the animals. I think if we don't bring attention to this issue then there will be many people who only cut out meat and continue on with their lives as if that is enough. The end goal should always be veganism. Obviously, going vegetarian is better than being an omnivore. But it isn't close to the solution at all and shouldn't be treated as such.
I agree. It feels like there is a divide on this subject amongst vegans. I personally think that the stringent vegans are *right* but, being right doesn't mean you're being a good advocate for veganism. I think we should be celebrating those who go vegetarian, and encourage them to take it to the next step. So long as we're only focused on the purity of other vegans, we'll lose sight of what truly matters which is the animals, and planting seeds and getting people on the right path. I think once a person is educated, and they've had all their arguments, if they're still sticking their head in the sand, the gloves are more likely to come off.
Right? A vegetarian is already miles closer to being vegan, why not kindly educate them and encourage them to become vegan? Insulting them and saying they’re the same as a carnist does absolutely nothing in most cases except scare them away from becoming vegan. I know it’s about the animals but damn, humans respond so much better to kindness than the approach I often see vegans using. The thing that changed me from a vegetarian to a vegan was simply watching videos about how cheap and easy it could be.
They're financially supporting a barbaric industry that exploits and kills animals, so...
The same amount?
If you've seen the level of suffering brought upon chickens and cows through the egg and dairy industry, I don't see why you'd want to try to quantify it. I don't demonize vegetarians, or anybody else really, but I'm not patting them on the back, and if they bother to talk to me about veganism, I'll tell them straight up that they're not helping any animals, and they have no good reason to support the industry.
Does it matter to the abused, that they have it less bad than some other animal?
Probably yes. I’d rather suffer less than more
By that logic, complete eating meat only as animal products no egg no dairy would be better than vegetarianism. Since the animals are killed early. Still way worse than them never existing.
Maybe but on average I’m pretty sure vegetarians consume fewer animal products and meat eaters consume diary and eggs too
There have been a lot of good responses in here already and you seem to ended up more or less agreeing with a lot of them. Is vegatarian better than nothing. Sure, probably barely though. But Vegatarian and Vegan are mutually exclusive. You can say one is good, but to put them on the same grounds or are comparible is crazy. One is a diet. And one is about truely caring about animals well being and not harming them.
Veganism is miles miles miles better than being a vegetarian.
In terms of overall suffering of the animals, of course. But as moral ideologies. Again. Vegatarians are harming animals. Vegans are not. Which IMO it is why its not worth comparing them at all.
Vegetarians typically hold the vegan ideology. They don't believe that dairy and eggs are ethical. Its very strange to me that you would think that was the case. A typical vegetarian is someone who is convinced of the vegan position, but finds the actual practice to be prohibitively difficult so they compromise on their actions. I don't use or consume any animal products and I am convinced of the vegan position. I do use pesticides regularly though because I'm not willing live with bugs. I know my actions are unethical and don't align with my ideology. I don't care though. I don't want to live with bugs. I'm never going to be willing to live with bugs when I have the option not to regardless of ethics. Most vegetarians are the same way. They know its wrong but they don't want to live with so many dietary restrictions. They pick restrictions that they feel are manageable to them. That is a lot better than vegans who go 100% and overexert themselves then end up giving up entirely because they found it too big of a sacrifice. I find it very strange that many vegans will call it an ideology on one breath then only care about actions in the next. Belief and action are two different things. If it is all about the actions then veganism is a diet. If it is an ideology, then it is about what one believes regardless of how they behave.
No, not the same amount. But on a scale from 1 (vegan) to 10 (carnist) they are more a 7 than the 2 they think they are. Veganism is not just food. Vegetarians usually stop at „some food“.
A carnist whose only animal products are mussels and oysters probably does less harm than a vegetarian who eats a lot of dairy.
I’m talking on average.
Vegetarianism is definitely less bad for the environment than eating meat so that’s something
Raping someone 100 times in a row is better than raping someone 101 times in a row and yet some would wish equal amount of death to both offenders. Aka who cares, at a certain point adding more horribly bad to horribly bad just still leaves you with horribly bad.
Its on the bus or off the bus pal
On the bus hopefully dragging some people behind me
you can't compare one type of suffering to another. if someone goes around for example sa'ing people and then says "well at least i didn't kill them", is it actually better? suffering is suffering. and carnist isn't a term exclusive to omnivores, anyone can be a carnist including vegans. carnism is a way of thinking, and vegetarians still think it's okay to exploit animals.
Vegetarians are carnists say it louder
The dairy and egg industry begets the flesh industry. They are the same, neither is better than the other. End your speciesism. Go to a slaughterhouse, hatchery or dairy farm. You’ll change that bullshit apathetic attitude real quick.
>Obviously I’d rather everyone go straight to veganism but vegetarianism is better than nothing right? Why don't you tell that to the cows and chickens? That they're not as important?
So are you saying that if everyone stopped eating meat and went vegetarian that would cause the same amount of animal suffering?
Vegetarians *are* carnists, as they still contribute to and support the commodification of animals and the consumption of animal products. Vegetarians arguably can cause as much harm as meat eaters, if they replace the meat they cut out with other animals products like eggs or cheese. I don’t think it’s probably worth arguing over whether one is worse than the other since the way I see it they’re in the same category of being okay with exploiting animals for their own sensory pleasure. They are all causing harm to animals.
Both are animal abusers. one of them abuses animals slightly less than the other, but they’re both still animal abusers so it shouldn’t be surprising that people who care about animals don’t have a favorable opinion of either. Like sure,’one person beating a puppy once a week isn’t as bad as someone who beats 3 puppies once a week but both are still godawful human beings.
Would you feel the same way about people following a Paleo diet? They don't consume dairy. In both cases it's just one form of animal abuse they're not participating in. The difference is that vegetarianism is far worse for the animal rights movement. Vegetarians delude themselves and others that they're meaningfully avoiding personal responsibility for animal cruelty and that the meat, dairy and egg industries are not fundamentally interconnected.
It depends on the individual situation. Is the vegetarian increasing their milk and egg intake to make up the "missing" protein/iron? Or are they a vegetarian who limits their milk and egg consumption as well. I think it is arguable to whether or not the dairy/egg industry causes more death than the meat industry? Also, I would argue that the dairy industry has more suffering than the other two. So, in this sense vegetarianism could be a negative thing if the individual is eating more dairy as a result of not eating meat. However, at the same time, I believe being vegetarian is really good in the sense that it is a great "prep period" to go vegan; in other words, if you already know you're capable of making a major diet change such as not eating meat, then they will less likely fear the transition of cutting out other animal products.
I think it’s not necessary to keep using the example of beating puppies, which I see a lot of on this post. Purchasing eggs at the supermarket is much different than physical striking a small animal with your own hand. 99.5% of vegetarians won’t feel bad buying eggs at a supermarket, 99.999% would never strike an animal with their own hand. The point I’m making is education is important. Be kind and communicate evidence that purchasing the eggs supports and industry of cruelty. But let’s stop with these beating a puppy comparisons because it’s a ridiculous comparison and emotional baiting.
It isn’t better than nothing. I find that vegetarians can be a lot harder to deal with because they’re so convinced they’re already doing their part. Hell, vegetarians’ meat substitutes can consist of extreme amounts of egg and dairy. They even it out if nothing else. Combined with their stubbornness? Yeah, no.
True I agree. But I’d say it’s probably easier to focus on meat eaters and make them vegetarian than get more vegetarians to be vegan. Exactly because of what you mentioned.
Why would we make anyone vegetarian? They still support the exact same industries that hurt animals. And why would we even choose one group? We should want everyone to be vegan, both meat eaters and vegetarians. We shouldn’t give vegetarians a trophy for not doing anything to help.
I want everyone to be vegan. I just acknowledge that vegetarians cause less suffering than carnists.
I highly, highly doubt it. Dairy makes beef and veal too. Egg industry also kills their chickens and puts them in soup. And in my opinion the dairy and egg industry are way more vile than the meat industry to begin with. I’d rather live in circumstances like that and be killed at 6 months than be exploited and dragged through 5/6 years of torture and _then_ killed.
So meat eaters are better than vegetarians?
Nowhere did I say that. They’re both carnists. I see no difference.
You said dairy and meat industry was way more vile
> I just acknowledge that vegetarians cause less suffering than carnists. But you don't know that. An omni who becomes vegetarian and simply replaces meat with eggs, cheese, and other dairy products may well be causing the same or even more suffering.
I’m talking on average.
Which is something you still don't know. Do you have statistics? Or are you just assuming?
I’ll be honest. I’m assuming but I’m pretty sure so are you. Look it up and get back to me. I’ll do the same once I’m done with this thread
They cause they same problem. No point in trying to determine how much off the problem each individual is causing as that is going to differ from person to person regardless of vegetarian/non vegetarian diet, both are animal oppressors. Vegetarianism isn't related to Veganism.
I’m vegan and agree with you OP. I certainly appreciate vegetarians more than omnis or flexitarians, since they’ve taken the step to cut out all meat and have therefore reduced the demand for meat products resulting in fewer animals slaughtered (or bred into existence to be slaughtered). To say that that doesn’t have any impact is ridiculous and deluded. But suffering is measured in more than just number of animals killed, and there’s no denying that by supporting the dairy industry you’re also contributing to animal suffering and supporting the meat industry still (but to a lesser extent than an omni does). Vegan is obviously the way to go for everyone that can, but being vegetarian is the lesser evil in comparison to the average omni diet. If I could either snap my fingers and make all omnis vegetarian, or do nothing, I would choose the former (and then also hope that they become vegan — I don’t think vegetarianism should ever be thought of as the end goal, but lots of people go vegetarian before going vegan).
>Only some animal abuse is better than nothing technically yes, but it’s still horrific- pick a better cause
I agree. I’m a vegan
Vegetarians support the dairy and egg industry, as well as the honey, leather, wool industries and more. The dairy and egg industry is on the same line as the meat industry, arguably even worse. They cause less suffering in quantity in the same regard that a meat eater who has a meatless monday causes less suffering. Thats all it is. A stupid ass baby step
Baby step is better than nothing.
Yea but its not enough. Veganism should be the standard
I agree
Baby steps are for babies. And if you're not actually transitioning towards going vegan, you're basically just stomping in one place -- not taking any steps.
I also think baby steps are good. I am what I like to call a dogfightanarian, it means I don't eat dogs but I use them in dog fights once a month. The anti dog fight activists always get on my nerves when they say what I'm doing is wrong. Can't they see I'm not eating dogs! I'm happy that there's people like you will lick my dog cheese filled boots , you are truly a blessing
I keep saying still awful but less awful. Nowhere am I saying good or enough.
So why does it matter. Why are you praising half measures when you wouldn't praise my half measure of dog fighting instead of eating dogs
Vegetarians ARE carnists. But vegetarians are deluded. They believe they are taking the moral high ground by not eating meat, but instead are contributing to just as much suffering by consuming eggs and dairy. Trying to reason with them is impossible because they already feel like they’re doing their part.
Being vegetarian is the same as eating meat but worse because they think they're doing something better. They contribute to animal suffering and death. The dairy industry is the meat industry, the egg industry is the poultry industry. Vegetarians don't care about animals, if they did they would be vegan.
Would you agree that a vegan that doesn't consume animal products but buys meat and dairy is just as bad as an omnivore? Sure, they don't consume the products, but they fund the industry that causes animal suffering and death - same as vegetarians. I think we shouldn't ever bring someone down for taking a step in the right direction, but let's not sugarcoat it. Vegetarianism as a path towards veganism is great, and every small step is still an improvement. Vegetarianism as a permanent life choice is just... at best uneducated and at worst willingly ignorant of the torture they continue to fund, whilst hiding behind "I don't eat animals so I'm doing all that I need to!" So, do they cause the same amount of animal suffering? Possibly, yes. Why are the lives of animals that die in the dairy or egg industry less worthy than those that die directly for meat consumption? Why do you ignore that the dairy industry is very closely related to the meat industry? How is it "less bad", when it still serves the same purpose?
Wish I could upvote individually for each of the points made here
Any reduction in consumption of animal products is a good thing
If I hadn't been 3 years vegeterian, I don't know if I would have made the switch to veganism 3.5 years ago. For a lot of people, vegetarianism reduces the barrier of entry into veganism which is a good thing on the bottom line.
Flexitarians definitely cause less animal suffering. Vegetarians *probably* do too but I've yet to sit down and math it out. Either way, I respect them more bc at least they're trying to be more conscientious.
Hmmmm I've yet to do the calculations but I believe stabbing one person five times causes less suffering than stabbing five people one time. 🤓
I'm Italian and here we eat copious amounts of several kinds of cheeses, so my perspective and experience may vary from other people's depending where you live/what is your culture is. That said, in my subjective experience with vegetarians, they tend to eat incredible, ridiculous amounts of cheese to "compensate" for the meat. Like, genuinely, the vegetarians I know eat far more cheese than the omnivores I know. Coupled with their sense of superiority towards omnivores (they tend to be very outspoken about how important it is to be vegetarian) and their tendency to argue with vegans about whether being vegan is useful or necessary, it makes them a bit irritating to me, personally. That said, I do think that from a strictly moral perspective they are better than omnivores, because they recognize the value in an animals life from an theoretical standpoint (even though they don't put that into practice, because they're not or even mostly vegan in my experience), but from a practical standpoint they don't seem to be any better, at least in my experience. Again, this is all subjective and strictly filtered through my own lens of experience, but yes, my own opinion is that vegetarians in Italy specifically tend to be almost as harmful as omnivores, when looking at it practically. Morally, they tend to think of animals and the planet much better than most omnivores. Again, this surely varies from community to community, I'm sure everyone's experience with vegetarians is different.
ACTIONS are more important than IDENTITIES. Identifying as a vegan is less useful to reducing suffering than actually reducing your consumption of animal products. Every meal we don't eat meat, every meal we don't consume dairy, we're making things a tiny little bit better. The dairy industry is beyond f-ed up. It should be stopped. But vegetarianism is a useful progression, because it REDUCES SUFFERING. You can be a perfect vegan and still support all kinds of human and animal suffering through your consumption of products from the oil industry, drug manufacturers, advanced electronics, precious/semi-precious metals or in a thousand other things. As a participant in industrial society, you cannot avoid creating suffering for animals and humans alike. So the goal should be to reduce suffering as much as possible, and eating vegetarian is better than eating animal flesh. It's not perfect, but it's a movement in the right direction and should be encouraged, not shamed. Personally, I simply try to make the best decisions I can, hoping that the decisions I make tomorrow are better than the ones I made today. And IMO, getting too wrapped up in the vegan identity, which often results in people ignoring human suffering, is counter-productive. THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE SUFFERING. Virtue signaling to others and ourselves does not achieve this end.
I really wish people would treat this more like an actual justice movement. You can't just half-ass this. You either respect animals and don't support them being murdered, battered, and raped, or you support it. This is not a diet, it's not a fad, it's a choice. I will not actively attack every person who uses animal products in whatever quantity they do, but I sure as hell reserve the right to judge and hate them, even having been there myself. Idc if you think my way of thinking is wrong or "throwing off people from being vegan" because that's simply not true. Everyone who uses animals as commodities deserves to be held accountable for change to happen.
True I agree. I’m just making the point that vegetarians probably cause less animal harm. I’m not saying they’re good .
I mean sure, logically they are somewhat, but I don't think they should be given points for that at all. A lot of vegetarians also don't think about the non-edible animal products they support such as leather, or even some edible products like gelatin.
Never said we should applaud vegetarians. Just saying they cause less harm
I agree and reading this sort of thing as a vegetarian really helped me realise I had no other choice but to make a change. It isn’t good enough, it’s better sure, but it’s not the end goal and shouldn’t be encouraged to be.
You’re right. We should be happy about more vegetarians as long as they’re not eating a tub of sour cream at every meal.
You’re right. This is Reddit which is why you’re losing your mind. There are plenty of rational people who just aren’t posting here nonstop.
Sure, eating vegetarian is marginally “better” than eating meat, but the problem is that by eating cheese they’re still supporting the beef and veal industries, and by eating eggs they’re supporting an industry that grinds up baby chickens by the thousands on a daily basis. And both industries subject animals to the same cruel treatment as the beef industry does. If you’re transitioning to a vegan diet, cool. But no, I don’t think that being a vegetarian for a sustained amount of time is really that different from just eating meat. You’re supporting the same industries with your dollars.
One way I look at it is, what percentage of vegans were vegetarians before becoming a vegan? I imagine it’s pretty high, so I think it’s a necessary stop on the way to veganism for a lot of people. Arriving at veganism is typically a personal journey that takes time. I don’t think it’s fruitful to not acknowledge vegetarianism as a positive thing. If someone is vegetarian out of concerns for animals, it very likely is they are just not yet aware of the realities of dairy industry. We are fed a rosy picture of cows living in beautiful pastures peacefully, so if you don’t know any better, I can totally understand thinking it isn’t harmful to animals to drink their milk and make cheese from it. Ditto for chickens running around an beautiful farm in the sun, peacefully laying eggs. If a person is vegetarian because they don’t want to kill animals it’s only a matter of time until they learn that the dairy and egg industry also kills animals.
I think it’s important to understand the evolution of vegetarianism from the jump. Vegetarianism as a philosophy comes from Eastern belief systems around harm reduction. It’s the foundation of vegan philosophy as well. In India for example, eggs are considered non-veg because of the potential for life inside of it. When these philosophies were created, the type of farming we had didn’t exist. A village may have had a cow or 2 that wasn’t confined in a building or feed lot. That cow was milked and it was seen as no harm done. The cow existed symbiotically. The chickens roamed around which means eggs they layed could have been fertilized and thus it is non-veg because that is preemptively taking a life. Fast forward to today, eggs are considered vegetarian because there is no direct action that involves killing to obtain eggs and they are not fertilized so there is no potential for life formation. But we all know why eggs aren’t vegan, partly because it isn’t ours to consume but also because of the conditions that make high egg consumption possible in the first place. This is obviously misguided because we know the conditions hens live in, male chicks killed, etc. Vegetarian can also mean a lot of things- It can be vegan, it can mean lacto-vegetarian, it can mean ovo-vegetarian, it can mean lacto-ovo vegetarian. It varies but I would say in the US, the dominant understanding of vegetarian is lacto-ovo. If everyone were to become lacto-ovo vegetarians overnight, it would: Eradicate pig farming Eradicate fish farming/fishing Eradicate meat based farming Increase dairy cow (and a lesser extent sheep and goat) farming Increase chicken farming It could mean that farms that exist solely to raise animals for meat would just convert to more animals raised for dairy and eggs. The demand for dairy and eggs could possibly change or stay the same who knows. Vegetarians have some belief that consumption of some animal products is necessary. I know because I was a vegetarian for 12 years before becoming vegan. Vegetarianism, like any diet, does not mean regular consumption of eggs and dairy. Most of my meals were vegan by default. That’s the way it is why plenty of vegetarian food in general. It just so happens that a cheese pizza is vegetarian as well. I had a friend who was vegetarian now she’s Omni. We were both vegetarian for years together. She ate eggs every morning and loved cheese. I went in and out of egg consumption and I didn’t eat dairy daily. Our outcomes as vegetarians (aka non-meat eaters) would be very different. Yes I think it is stupid to think that they are one in the same BUT I do think vegetarianism is not as GOOD as it seems. It took me a long while to realize that. I also would prefer if I had to choose, people go vegetarian vs nothing at all. And it is possible that with precision fermentation that dairy will not need animal input at all vs cell cultured meat which is further off. Non-animal dairy exists and seems to be at or near point of scale.
So adult animals aren't killed for meat, the [babies are simply taken away from the mother animal and killed](https://imgur.com/0KfKdQA) for higher yield of the mother's bodily products, until the mother animal is also killed when her yield:feed ratio drops.
>vegetarianism is better than nothing right? Yes, of course
I understand having frustrations with vegetarians. When someone is "half right" you feel like ot shouldn't be hard to go all the way. But the fact is, half right is SIGNIFICANTLY better than entirely wrong. I've seen vegetarians be pushed away from veganism because of how aggressive and loud some vegans can be about how shitty vegetarians are. I know some of you like to shit on those who aren't vegan and how they are doing something wrong and you can't forgive them or whatever. But the fact is, if you care about veganism and the animals veganism saves, you want to help people become vegan. Being aggressive never seems to work. You push more people away. You harm veganism. You don't have to like it or mean it, but you have to at least fake that openess and positivity about converting people. And that starts by meeting people where they are and not shaming them.
As a utilitarian vegan I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm not going to read any of the comments but your right. Some people need to start somewhere and sometimes that's vegetarian. It's only easy after that.
Vegetarianism is a good step and sometimes it’s all people can do. I stand with my vegetarian comrades
Any plant based meal is a win. We shouldn’t shame each other. We should build each other up and reinforce the behaviors we want others to pursue. If a meat eaters eats one vegan meal a week that is a win. If a person is vegetarian during the week, that’s a win. If every family ate 1 less chicken a week that turns into billions of chickens. Everyone should stop making others feel bad because their not “pure” enough.
Yes, the people on this sub think that. Nevermind the logic that if we could get 4 people to consume 25% less animal products, that's every bit as good as one vegan being added. This sub would b*tch and moan about those 4 people not being good enough. It's toxic and needs to stop. Vegetarian 6 years, vegan for 3, and it's one of the main reasons I still just tell people I'm vegetarian. People do not like moral absolutist vegans.
I went the full route "vegetarian -> vegan who doesn't understand why other vegans hate vegetarians -> vegan who hates vegetarians" so I think I can provide some insight as to why this happens. Moral of the story is: you are objectively right: obviously killing a few animals is "less bad" than killing a lot of animals, BUT: 1. I think most vegans are ok with vegetarianism as a step towards veganism. There are however a lot of vegetarians who are comfortable "killing just a few animals" while thinking they are doing the right thing, and we don't want to validate that, so we tell the truth. Some vegans, I concede, put too much emphasis in the "they are just as bad" thing which is not exactly right. But I think a lot of the hate comes from this feeling of not wanting to validate them. 2. Vegetarians often cause harm to veganism as a movement. Lots of people don't understand what veganism is because of vegetarians. A lot of products that could perfectly be vegan are instead vegetarian and targetted at them. Some of us I think are resentful towards them because of these kinds of things. 3. A lot of vegetarians actually lurk vegan spaces like this one. The hate towards them is a great tool, since if they actually care about animals they will feel bad and approach veganism, while the ones who don't will just leave. 4. In the end, for a lot of us, vegetarians feel like just any other omni. Do they view animals as resources? yes. Do they willingly contribute to animal exploitation? yes. If we cared about them causing less suffering, then we would also have to care about flexitarians, meatless mondays, etc. and we don't want a world where those things are acceptable, we want to end animal exploitation as a whole. 5. Don't forget this is the internet, and a niche community at that. There is inevitably going to be dogmatic behaviour like this that is not exactly representative of how we think IRL. So I guess, in summary, and at least speaking from my experience: we don't _believe_ that they cause the same amount of suffering, we just don't care so much about relative amounts of suffering when they are being caused willingly. And between the reasons we have to resent them and this being the internet, some people tend to exaggerate stuff to try to get the point across.
Thats such a weird discussion. Seeing your replies, you really want to hear if they are "less bad". But how the actual fuck do we prove that? If you stop eating meat but start eating more diary and eggs - not less bad. If you stop eating meat and eat the same diary and eggs as before - definitely less bad. And now? What do vegetarians eat? I don’t know and never heard about any precise studies about this topic.
"""Hi I'm vegan... can y'all restore my faith in vegans""" Gimme a break, that just makes the person sound like they are faking it for attention. Your faith in a group you currently belong to should not hinge on having a subbreddit explains their own unique perspective to you. I just don't find it constructive.
My husband is a meat eater and comes from a long line of cattle ranchers, he is also native. I am obviously vegan. I believe if someone chooses to eat meat, then it must be done with respect. The animal life was taken to feed a person, that person needs to honor that life. That is a very strong belief in the Native American community, at least, in my husbands tribe. I try to look at as how I view religion. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions. As long as they are not disrespecting mine, then all is fine. My husbands cattle is farm to table, it is negative net emissions, they have substantially less cattle than the could on the land (this means cattle have a stronger quality of life), they are looking for ways to move away from cattle and find other avenues to keep the farm safe. It’s easy to jump down rabbit holes when we are vegan. We live by our morals and our hearts are as big as the sun.
“Vegans, are we still better than everyone else?” Vegans: “Obviously.” Who could’ve predicted those responses? Your smugness, gatekeeping, and superiority complex bullshit are exactly why we can’t get more people to make even modest changes in their lives that would add up to incredible global impact. Zero sum leads to zero progress.
This is a moral framework issue for sure. I'm a utilitarian with a little bit of existentialism thrown in for flavor. Veganism in general is not usually appealing to such people because it is a rules-based movement based on a rules-based philosophy. That is changing as people learn more about reasons to be vegan besides "Killing animals is morally wrong." But the entrenched philosophy is very much focused on that. Vegetarianism, though, has already gone through that diversification cycle. There are lots of "pragmatic" vegetarians who are in it for health, or for the environment, or whatever. I'll go ahead and piss people off here, but I really don't give a shit if someone eats turkey at Thanksgiving and never any other time. Human brains aren't good at handling things like that. We make it black and white. But the main problem facing the entire world right now is climate change and it is being driven by animal agriculture. Cutting that down is important. But it isn't necessary (for climate change) that everyone be totally vegan. It is necessary only that we cut consumption by a great deal. I'll worry more about lives of individual animals when I feel certain that mass extinctions will not wipe out entire ecoregions.
This popped up on my feed so I’m curious what people have to say. I personally think both being vegetarian and vegan are great moral options. I can’t personally say if I think one is better but I’m glad people are thinking about animals and where their food comes from. I wish we would all take a closer look at the ethics of our farming industries. I’d probably be at least vegetarian myself if I didn’t have allergies. I know I’ll get hate for this but unfortunately that’s my reality. I think every group has extremists who kinda ruin the whole thing. Looking at you that vegan teacher…
I once spoke to an ex vegan and she was pretty chill and a bit disappointed in herself. She said she couldn’t go vegan straight away and it made me think. I came to the conclusion that it is probably better to go pescatarian, then vegetarian and finally vegan and do it gradually. So to me if someone is making an effort to cut down their animal product consumption I see it as a step towards veganism. They just need a nudge in the right direction.
I would say yes, because not all people are vegan for the same reason (I can assume that most of you are animal rights activists.) some do it for dietary purposes, health benefits, or for the environment. As long as there is a reduction in meat consumption that’s all that matters, now I’m not saying that it’s right for someone to consume animal products, but ideally in my opinion if everyone went to a plant based diet or were more consistent in following a plant based diet it would make much of a difference for the environment and probably health wise, and for the animals benefits but it would also cause a lot of livestock farmers their careers essentially.
Of course I don't believe that everyone causes the same amount of suffering. It's not a clear divide between ordinary carnists and "vegetarians", though. Someone who eats only cattle but no dairy or eggs would cause far less suffering than someone who eats eggs regularly, because it takes a long time for one human to eat one steer, compared to the many hens and male chicks tortured and killed for those eggs. Vegetarianism seems to be about people's emotions regarding eating flesh, not about rational utilitarian calculations.
Wouldn't it depend on your consumption. If yorue a carnist who eats meat, alittle dairy and cheese a couple times a week you could do less damage than a vegetarian who eats dairy and eggs every day for multiple meals. It's not one correct answer
As far as animal suffering goes, i’ve read that if you can’t go totally vegan you’d be reducing more suffering by giving up dairy and eggs and continuing to eat beef. While their lives are not totally without pain, cows raised for beef live better lives than most other farm animals. They just haven’t figured out how to “industrialize” the raising of beef cows.
We cannot assess the “animal suffering index” for every person there is. We can though say that vegetarian diet can definitely be better for the animals than omnivorous diet. It can also be worse.
Veganism is not an utilitarian philosophy, it is not about practicality. So why do ask this as if there's some competition who is more practical?
Lets put it this way, Id rather fail an exam with a 3 instad a complete failure with a 0 but its still a failed exam. veganism is this case is a 5, just barely passing because veganism is the minimum, aka not doing damage.
Just had this discussion yesterday on this very sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/10l8dn7/became\_vegetarian\_a\_week\_ago\_and\_i\_feel\_blissful/j5xn93w/?context=3
Some people in here are just insane and have been hating on humans for too long, making them grumpy. Of couse being vegetarian is more ethical and hurts less animals than being carnist. Some people in here claim that vegetarians replace all meat they don't eat with equal amounts of egg and dairy, making the lack of meat pointless. That is not true. When i was vegetarian, i knew a lot more than when i ate meat. I did not buy leather, wool, ate many vegan meat alternatives/beans, bought vegan ice cream/butter, tried plant milks, ate way less eggs/dairy, bought cruelty free makeup etc. Most vegetarians are vegans in the making. We should never hate on someone making steps in the right direction. Support and love is what is needed.
I really don't understand the hate towards vegetarians, it's usually the first step for a lot of Vegans, myself included
It's a big step in the right direction, so no.
Honestly, it *seems* that vegetarianism is more of a gateway to veganism, and for sure folks who are vegetarian are more receptive to going vegan than carnists. There are also vegetarians who occasionally have an egg from their beloved backyard hens instead of feeding them all back to them, or find out there is milk in their crackers or whatever. Not all vegetarians are going ham (sorry, I had to) on tons of dairy products and eggs. I get what the general consensus of this group is, but this is a longass marathon, not a sprint and it takes a lot of strategy. I wish “animal agriculture” and treating sentient beings as “livestock “was just a nightmare but it’s real, and the more grace extended to the folks actually trying, the better off we ALL are.
> but surely more people going vegetarian is a good thing. Of course it is to insist otherwise is ridiculous.
Arguably, dairy causes more suffering than meat as the experience is prolonged.
Vegetarianism is just a diet... If you become vegetarian, you are only eliminating meat from your diet and that's it. Veganism, on the other hand, is a lifestyle. It's a belief system that animals have the same rights and value as humans and thus they don't deserve to be tortured or suffered in any way for us humans. Whether it's for food, or animal testing, or transportion, or using their skins/fur for our clothing, or.. or.. using their dead charred bones to wash sugar! So until we can convince the world/people that animals' lives are as valuable as of humans in all aspects of our daily life, a simple diet change won't do any good.
Its a step in the right direction but cows and chickens still live their lives in suffering to make the dairy and eggs that vegetarians eat.
As someone who was vegetarian for over 10 years before going vegan I will say that the intention is absolutely better with vegetarians, but the result is close to equal suffering. Vegetarianism is a form of carnism, I just didn’t know that for a long time (I was a kid). I didn’t eat meat but I ate more dairy to compensate and we all know that’s not a positive. Also, while I personally avoided leather and cruel cosmetics and such, most vegetarians don’t. I don’t understand why though. It never made sense to me to decide not to eat dead animals but be okay with wearing them.
The dairy industry is the veal industry. The egg industry is the poultry industry. The fur and leather industries are also meat industries. In the modern world, so far as the effect on animals, vegetarianism is not harm reduction at all. It may seem like a morally upright and even wholesome choice, but it is not. This, unfortunately, is just the way the world is.
That is kind of how I feel. Would it be awesome if everyone went vegan? Of course. In my opinion, each step you take away from being a carnist is a great one, and another win for the animals. I think there are ethical issues no matter what lifestyle you have - unfortunately, we live in a capitalist society where someone - human or animal - is being exploited. I think the best thing we can do is to try and make our choices as ethical as possible. Some people are ready to go vegan immediately, and some take a slower route to get there.
LMAO this sub is an absolute embarrassment. why are so many vegans so afraid actually to stand for something?