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

  • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    76·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      8·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        23·
        2 days ago

        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.

    • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
      31·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        52·
        2 days ago

        Again, I’m not vegan nor particularly experienced in vegan arguments but there is clear suffering here:

        1. Imprisonment is often considered suffering and cows are not wild animals. They are rarely treated well.
        2. 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.
        3. 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.
        4. 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/
        • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
          41·
          2 days ago
          1. Didn’t say anything about imprisoning them. They can free range all they want in this example.
          2. The method employed specifically prevents fear. Assume a method that doesn’t induce fear. They exist.
          3. This is a stretch of the definition. Discontinuation of happiness without knowledge before or after is not suffering.
          4. 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.

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            21·
            2 days ago
            1. “Free Range” is still limited by fences usually and >99% of cows will not live in the way many people understand free range because it would be prohibitevely expensive.
            2. The methods exist but are never used for the same reason as 1. Pigs in Germany for instance are suffocated to death with CO2 causing extreme - if temporary - suffering. Nitrogen is a bit more expensive which is why it isn’t used.
            3. It depends. Discontinuation of happiness is one argument why killing is immoral, even if they are killed without direct suffering.
            4. Is killing a cow the only way for families to live through winter (without hunger/malnutrition etc.)? Then I’d say killing one is the lesser evil. If a family has other choices that do not involve killing, then I’d say the moral action would be taking them.

            There are various more - and far better articulated - reasons why killing is bad by the way. Here are some: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/67606/why-is-murder-wrong

            Still, I believe it is hardly possible to reliably kill without involving suffering anywhere.

            Though I would consider hunting to be the most ethical variant. It’s not even a battle when factory farming exists.

            • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
              21·
              1 day ago

              I really don’t need reasons why killing is bad :P

              TBH all vegan’s ethics can be countered with ‘check your privilege’.

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            11·
            2 days ago

            We know several intelligent animals have some sort of concept of death because they are capable of mourning. This doesn’t prove they understand personal mortality but it proves that they understand the mortality of others to some extent which is a necessity for understanding your own.

            My argument why cows do not want to die is a basic evolutionary one:

            Individuals that do not want to die are more likely to reproduce than one’s that want to die. It is therefore likely that cow populations today largely do not want to die.

            Also, being neutral to the concept of death - or even not knowing about it - implies the absence of a wish to die. If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.

            • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              1·
              2 days ago

              . If cows do not even understand personal mortality they do not want to die.

              Right. but moot. if that’s the case then why bring it up at all? we should only be concerned with things that we can prove and base our conclusions on provable fact.

            • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              11·
              2 days ago

              Individuals that do not want to die are more likely to reproduce than one’s that want to die. It is therefore likely that cow populations today largely do not want to die.

              I think it’s probably accurate to say they don’t want to die, cuz they don’t know it’s a thing that they could want.

        • NSRXN (insurrection)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          31·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            22·
            2 days ago

            Those have nothing to do with imprisonment.

            If I locked 10 people in a room and regularly gave them food and water they would still be imprisoned because they couldn’t leave.

            We know humans suffer from imprisonment and we accept since the mid 20th century that this applies to all humans. It’s not a big stretch to assume imprisonment causes suffering for animals as well.

            Besides, most cows on the planet have literally nothing of what you described. Except maybe drinkable water and protection from predators.