Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from !vegan@lemmy.world for being fake vegans.
From my perspective, the comments were in no way insulting and just part of completely normal interaction. If this decision reflects the general opinion of the mod team, then from my perspective, the biggest vegan community on Lemmy wants to be an elitist cycle of hardcore vegans only, not allowing any slightly different opinion. Which would be very unfortunate.
PS: In contrast to the name of this community, I don’t want to insult anyone here being a ‘bastard’. I just want to post this somewhere on neutral ground. I would really appreciate an open discussion without bashing anyone.
PPS: Some instances or clients seem to compress the screenshots in a way they’re unreadable. Find the full resolution here: https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm
Linking the affected users and mods: @Cypher@lemmy.world @gaael@lemmy.world @gredo@lemmy.world @iiGxC@slrpnk.net @veganpizza69@lemmy.world @veganpizza69@lemmy.vg @jerkface@lemmy.ca @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world @Sunshine@lemmy.ca @Aqua@lemmy.vg
I’d argue minimizing suffering is basis for all ethics, just that they are achieving it in different ways.
Deontological ethics in a vacuum cause more suffering than utilitarianism. Yet (most) deontological philosophies seek to achieve as much good as possible - and therefore minimizing harm. Kant’s categorical imperative is - as a layman - just a formalization of: “Do what is good for you AND others. Don’t do what is good for you but bad for others.”
And I believe if you ask an ethics board at a why something was not permitted, you will always get the result: “Causes too much harm”. This happens despite them being allowed to evaluate based on many different philosophies.
I know very little ethics systems that don’t inevitable lead to a society with less suffering if strictly followed by most. Although that might just be because society as is is objectively unethical.
So if I understand correctly, a cow can be killed with a gun to the back of the head painlessly and its death prevents hunger for an entire family for the winter so killing it is ethical. Got it.
Again, I’m not vegan nor particularly experienced in vegan arguments but there is clear suffering here:
- Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.
- Fear is suffering. Based on the manners of the one killing the cow, it can “sense” intentions/that something is off. A designated slaughtering area for instance would cause a strong fear response.
- Restricting someone from achieving happiness and going against their wishes is suffering. We know that cows do not want to die. Killing them would violate their desires and cause suffering. This is the same (simplified) argument philosophers use to claim killing humans is bad.
- In organisms with social bonds, killing causes grieve (= suffering) for their social circle. Here’s some more information on that, I recommend a read: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/animal-grief/
We know that cows do not want to die.
no, we don’t. we don’t even know if they understand personal mortality
Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.
they’re provided, veterinary care, protection from the elements, protection from predators, drinkable water, space to graze, and opportunities to socialize. it’s not imprisonment.
- Didn’t say anything about imprisoning them. They can free range all they want in this example.
- The method employed specifically prevents fear. Assume a method that doesn’t induce fear. They exist.
- This is a stretch of the definition. Discontinuation of happiness without knowledge before or after is not suffering.
- Prevent socializing completely after birth. Got it. Or, more reasonably, the grief of loss is inevitable and a small price to pay anyways to feed a family for the winter.
Edit: Also, I’m not really trying to justify eating animals. TBH I’m ironically more sympathetic to Vegans due to me being a hunter. Frankly I think meat eaters should have to participate in the harvesting of an animal you eat at least once before age of majority. That would at least confer appreciation for some of what is involved.
all divine command theories only incidentally reduce harm, and only sometimes. and kant (like all deontologists) is not concerned with outcomes, only the correctness of the action.
From my limited knowledge, Kant was concerned with rationality first and foremost. But suffering just happens to be one of the most irrational things there is. In no world is there ever a benefit to increasing suffering because if you apply this universally you too would experience increased suffering which is irrational.
I don’t think this is a coincidence. You could create a deontological philosophy that bases everything on irrationality and it would remain consistent if viewed through the lens of itself. Irrational maxims lead to contradictions, meaning this philosophy too is irrational and contradictory - which is consistent if you seek to apply irrationality universally.
Why didn’t Kant come up with the inversion of his philosophy if it remains consistent? I’d argue because it would have lead to maximizing suffering which (mostly) nobody wants.
