Perhaps I misunderstood, so let’s back up a step.
Do you think veganism entails a “moral system that requires [you] to pretend that when [your child] and a chicken are trapped in a burning building that [you’ll] be unconcerned about who gets rescued”?
Nope, not at all. That was, in conjunction with the complementary example where the trapped people swap around, an example of worth and value of beings being subjective, and how belief that humans and chickens are of truly equal consequence is not something that is believed often, if ever.
Sometimes arguments for veganism can convey that it entails that belief though, even though it does not. This can cause disagreement where one party argues that they have more value than a chicken, and the other is arguing that a chicken “has value”. One party hears “your life and a chickens are equally important”, and the other hears “there is nothing you can do to a chicken that is morally impermissible”.
Inspired by the “fire at an IVF clinic, who do you grab, the baby or the cooler with 500 human embryos” used to demonstrate that people don’t really value an embryo as much as a baby, but I didn’t want to imply a parallel between veganism and anti-abortion, or say they were hypocritical.
Ah, my mistake, I definitely misunderstood your comment, then. I misread your comment as a criticism of veganism due to the larger context of thread.
Totally reasonable. I reread the context and I had mostly ignored the anti-vegan starter comment on account of it being such a bleh sentiment, but got snagged by the value comment.
No issues with veganism other than some academic edge cases around insect products that I think could qualify as mutually beneficial, but mainstream veganism seems to disagree.
