Ethics of veganism

[Night FM]

What are your thoughts on it? I believe that, theoretically, veganism is more ethical than eating meat, but realistically, I don't expect everyone to become a vegan, given that farming and hunting animals for meat has been a practice in all cultures that I'm aware of, even ones which lived closer to nature.

While the book of Genesis in the Bible says that Adam and Eve were vegans prior to the Fall of Man, I'm not sure where this actually fits into cultural history.

[joigus]

Why is the Bible relevant in General Philosophy? I'm sure the Bhagavad Gita has a different take on it.

Philosophy is supposed to be objective.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

While the book of Genesis in the Bible says that Adam and Eve were vegans prior to the Fall of Man

Does it say this?Or is it just an inference that requires you to believe also that carnivores were vegans, too?

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Why is the Bible relevant in General Philosophy? I'm sure the Bhagavad Gita has a different take on it.

Philosophy is supposed to be objective.

Moved to ethics, because of the title.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

While the book of Genesis in the Bible says that Adam and Eve were vegans prior to the Fall of Man, I'm not sure where this actually fits into cultural history.

This always seemed like an extremist stance. The quotes from the Bible say that green plants are given for food, but it never says "Don't eat the animals!" the way it says "Don't eat apples from that tree over there!" Just like abortion and divorce, isn't it possible their god disapproves of something but allows it in some circumstances?

And the idea that all those obligate carnivores were munching nuts and dandelions is just crazy, as is the idea that their god changed up the physiology of everything after A&E got too curious. 

I don't think there's anything unethical about eating meat, not back then, not today. Animal husbandry and agriculture upgraded us from hunters and gatherers. What we should focus on is being able to raise our food animals without destroying the habitats of all the non-food animals we live alongside of. Diversity in all things. No more monocropping, no more factory farming. There are better ways.

[TheVat]

There are multiple ethical issues that swirl around veganism v carnivory.

The ethics of how we treat animals - which gets into how animals suffer, factory farming conditions, and whether animals are lesser beings which we may legitimately use for our sustenance.

The ethics of the resource-intensive high carbon footprint production of meat.  An issue of eco stewardship and sustainability for eight billion plus people.

The ethics of public health policies and recommendations against meat consumption - i.e. impact on human health and any obligation to make the costs of meat consumption known to the general public.

For me, there are some things that change when you go from a hunter gatherer population of 10-200 million people to modern societies supporting eight billion.  I am vegan, five days per week, with sustainable catch fish and free-range eggs two days per week.  Pure veganism results in fatigue and minor health issues for me, an experience that seems to be pretty common.  Generally, I am happy to (as GB Shaw put it) mostly leave the animals alone.  Factory farming (which I've experienced up close) is a nightmare.

[iNow]

I think it's unethical to use legislation to ban lab grown meat because rich people in the cattle and ag-community pay off and heavily pressure their congress people to do so (not due to any genuine health risks). Same for the treatment of nut milks bc the dairy industry doesn't like it. 

[LuckyR]

In my experience most thoughtful individuals find factory farming unethical, though it obviously passes the ethical standard for society at large. But there are small ranching operations that don't use agribusiness techniques such that the only alternative to factory farming is vegetarianism.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, LuckyR said:

In my experience most thoughtful individuals find factory farming unethical, though it obviously passes the ethical standard for society at large. But there are small ranching operations that don't use agribusiness techniques such that the only alternative to factory farming is vegetarianism.

I think the ethics only enter into it if you’re wealthy enough to have options, and having a significant fraction of people above the threshold is a relatively recent occurrence. 

[LuckyR]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

I think the ethics only enter into it if you’re wealthy enough to have options, and having a significant fraction of people above the threshold is a relatively recent occurrence. 

Well, by that measure factory farming itself is also of "relatively recent occurence".

[Skovand]

So genesis does indeed reach that humans were vegans prior the events of the flood. It’s only after the flood that it’s mentioned that it’s ok to now eat meat.  But you have to understand that Genesis is not a singular story. It’s 2-3 different traditions of Judaism that developed overtime stitched together creating a biblical seam. So genesis 1 for example is believed to have been written after Genesis 2 but that they both are also from different sects of Judaism. We see this by the fact that Abel gave an animal sacrifice. This was most likely a redaction created at a later point than Genesis 6 and all of it seems to either be a reimagining of The Epic of Gilgamesh or either both are based on an older now lost text. So you can’t really argue either or. You can argue for both. 
 

But besides that, is veganism more ethical than enslaving and killing and eating an animal? I would say it’s objectively more ethical, depending on how you define ethics. I’ve been a vegan for close to 18 years now. I went vegan first for farm animals. They are obviously sentient beings that feel fear and pain as they suffer leading up to their death.  As time went on and I learned more about it and how it affects the environment I added to reasons for being one.  80%+ of pastures and crops are for livestock. The bulk of the rainforest being cut down in South America is for livestock including livestock feed. More land is being deforested and more rivers being dammed ( and damned ) to help add power to these corpse manufactures. 
 

however, loss of life is part of this planet in the way we are set up. I have cats. Three of them. While my cats don’t need to be vegan or forced into it by me, I benefit from the byproducts of slaughtered animals since it’s used to help make food. While my contribution is far smaller than someone who consistently eat meat, I still have some blood on my hand.  So I don’t think I’m better than someone else, but I do believe I’m making less of a carbon footprint with my diet than them and my own meals are more ethical. 

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, Skovand said:

So genesis does indeed reach that humans were vegans prior the events of the flood. It’s only after the flood that it’s mentioned that it’s ok to now eat meat.

Can you please be specific about chapter and verse?

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Skovand said:

 I would say it’s objectively more ethical, depending on how you define ethics.

If an ethical choice can be objectively so, that would imply an agreed upon definition of ethics, would it not?  And one presumes a definition grounded in objective facts about the welfare of animals.

For example, it's pretty clear that animal confinement involves some suffering, so a choice to eat only wild-caught fish would reduce some suffering.  And that choice would also reduce carbon footprint, given that wild caught fish "raise themselves" and, thanks to modern canning methods, can be transported far inland efficiently and without refrigerator trucks.   That's just one example, but it shows there are objective facts about benefits to the environment and reduced animal suffering that can be factored in to one's menu choices.   

Ethics seems to me an endeavor where we try to become aware of causes and effects of our actions, rather than seeking to "be better" than someone else.  (which usually engenders attitudes that are counterproductive to fostering awareness)  

[LuckyR]

On 12/26/2024 at 1:11 PM, TheVat said:

If an ethical choice can be objectively so, that would imply an agreed upon definition of ethics, would it not?  And one presumes a definition grounded in objective facts about the welfare of animals.

For example, it's pretty clear that animal confinement involves some suffering, so a choice to eat only wild-caught fish would reduce some suffering.  And that choice would also reduce carbon footprint, given that wild caught fish "raise themselves" and, thanks to modern canning methods, can be transported far inland efficiently and without refrigerator trucks.   That's just one example, but it shows there are objective facts about benefits to the environment and reduced animal suffering that can be factored in to one's menu choices.   

Ethics seems to me an endeavor where we try to become aware of causes and effects of our actions, rather than seeking to "be better" than someone else.  (which usually engenders attitudes that are counterproductive to fostering awareness)  

Very reasonable. Similarly, free range chickens experience less suffering than factory farmed chickens etc.

[Ten oz]

The production of meat is inefficient and bad for the environment. The number of calories required to produce meat is greater than the number of calories one can get from eating said meat. Chicken, Cows, Pigs, etc require feed. So there are entire agricultural crops that need to exist to sustain meat. 

Meat is bad for the environment. Per calorie meat requires more land and more water while producing more climate harming byproducts. Run off from ranches also contaminate regional water supplies.

With the above said I don't really have any opinions surrounding meat related to the Bible. Humans evolved eating insects, fish, and meat in addition to fruits and vegetables. It is natural for us to eat some amount of meat. 

 

[LuckyR]

On 1/26/2025 at 6:44 AM, Ten oz said:

The production of meat is inefficient and bad for the environment. The number of calories required to produce meat is greater than the number of calories one can get from eating said meat. Chicken, Cows, Pigs, etc require feed. So there are entire agricultural crops that need to exist to sustain meat. 

Meat is bad for the environment. Per calorie meat requires more land and more water while producing more climate harming byproducts. Run off from ranches also contaminate regional water supplies.

With the above said I don't really have any opinions surrounding meat related to the Bible. Humans evolved eating insects, fish, and meat in addition to fruits and vegetables. It is natural for us to eat some amount of meat. 

 

While there are several true factoids within this post, none of them can stand alone to definitively guide one to choose veganism. That is, there are many other truths surrounding this general topic that warrant consideration. 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, LuckyR said:

While there are several true factoids within this post, none of them can stand alone to definitively guide one to choose veganism.

They're facts, and none were intended to stand individually: the argument was offered as a coherent whole, not to one, but to the world's population as a coherent whole.

At least, that's how I read it. I'm unaware of any ethical considerations that would guide us to carnivorism.  Some form of vegetarian diet, or possibly an omnivorous one involving cultured meat, coupled with very different agricultural practices would probably serve us best. To preserve some semblance of a liveable environment, to distribute available food more equitably and to improve human health.

As far as the bible is concerned, there are two versions of the creation story in Genesis, probably contributed by two different cultures. 

Quote

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The herbs and things were for the beasts of the field to eat; no mention of what humans should and should not eat. In Chapter 2, there are only two humans and they're in a walled garden. They're given no dietary restrictions but for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

There may be some biblical approval of butchery in Chapter 4, when God accepts the lamb offered by Abel and rejected Cain's 'fruit of the ground'.  However, i believe that's a reference to the antipathy of migratory herders to settled farmers. Not unlike the range wars of the American frontier. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

They're facts

They are cherry picked facts as they do not apply to all meat production.

[TheVat]

True, some areas like the higher semiarid plains near me do not support cropping, and are ecosystems which work best with herds of large herbivores.  There are ranchers out here who are trying sustainable free range beef, as an alternative to the cruel feedlot system (called CAFOs).  Most people couldn't eat meat all the time with such methods, the product is expensive, but that would encourage the more plant based diet where meat is an occasional luxury - my experience is that "mostly plants" is great for the health, and there seems a lot of research to support that.  Certainly a heavy meat diet for 8.2 billion people is not sustainable, just on the basis of water and crop feed requirements.  

 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

They are cherry picked facts as they do not apply to all meat production.

Cherry-picked facts are still facts. Where is the tree they're picked from? The only meat production I can think of that contradicts

On 1/26/2025 at 9:44 AM, Ten oz said:

The production of meat is inefficient and bad for the environment. The number of calories required to produce meat is greater than the number of calories one can get from eating said meat. Chicken, Cows, Pigs, etc require feed. So there are entire agricultural crops that need to exist to sustain meat. 

is cultured meat, which, atm is a heavy user of energy and encountering massive resistance from factory farmers. 

On 1/26/2025 at 9:44 AM, Ten oz said:

Meat is bad for the environment. Per calorie meat requires more land and more water while producing more climate harming byproducts. Run off from ranches also contaminate regional water supplies.

Is there a form of meat production that does not produce methane or a method of farming that doesn't require more land an water than the production of vegetables for human consumption and that also prevents manure runoff?   

The inefficiency of a three-step system compared to a single step is obvious. The methane can't be helped. There are ways to combine livestock husbandry with the growing of crops for human consumption and ways contain and recycle the waste. But not on the scale that the present meat-consuming population requires.   

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Cherry-picked facts are still facts.

Nothing gets by you. Except for recognizing that cherry picking facts can be misleading and ruin the foundation of a coherent argument.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Nothing gets by you. Except for recognizing that cherry picking facts can be misleading and ruin the foundation of a coherent argument.

Yes, it can. I have tried to cover the essentials in question. Please correct the errors I made.

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Nothing gets by you. Except for recognizing that cherry picking facts can be misleading and ruin the foundation of a coherent argument.

Indeed, like the common vegan argument; that bc of factory farm's, all animal product's are tainted bc of the moral imperative to not cause suffering. I get that, but a more fundamental moral question must be, does a well husbanded animal live a better life than his wild brethren?

If so, then we sould all eat freelance and be thankfull for the cheese...

[Ten oz]

19 hours ago, LuckyR said:

While there are several true factoids within this post, none of them can stand alone to definitively guide one to choose veganism. That is, there are many other truths surrounding this general topic that warrant consideration. 

Which is why I said "Humans evolved eating insects, fish, and meat in addition to fruits and vegetables. It is natural for us to eat some amount of meat." My post wasn't attempting to imply one should be vegan. 

[TheVat]

13 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Is there a form of meat production that does not produce methane or a method of farming that doesn't require more land an water than the production of vegetables for human consumption and that also prevents manure runoff?   

The inefficiency of a three-step system compared to a single step is obvious. The methane can't be helped. There are ways to combine livestock husbandry with the growing of crops for human consumption and ways contain and recycle the waste. But not on the scale that the present meat-consuming population requires.   

See my previous post.  Using only grassland unsuitable for cropping, elimination of the CAFO system, and free grazing with natural herd bonding and culling, would allow meat at least as an occasional treat and help maintain the prairie ecosystem which needs the trophic cascade and soil breaking (hoof action helps aeration) of large herbivores.  Manure runoff and water waste is an artifact of CAFO systems.  

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

See my previous post.  Using only grassland unsuitable for cropping, elimination of the CAFO system, and free grazing with natural herd bonding and culling, would allow meat at least as an occasional treat and help maintain the prairie ecosystem which needs the trophic cascade and soil breaking (hoof action helps aeration) of large herbivores.  Manure runoff and water waste is an artifact of CAFO systems.  

Yes, in the US and Canada, where we have big grasslands and don't want buffalo roaming all over the place. You'd still need to build slaughterhouses in the prairie, as the highway system prevents any big cattle drives to New York and LA. That means many large refrigerated trucks, laying rubber and spewing carbon from gasoline, which itself is not an environmentally friendly resource to harvest. I suppose you could make the slaughterhouses efficient and relatively humane - but would the people likely to be in charge make that a priority? In other parts of the world, free range grazing presents bigger problems.  Also, of course, far too many people are demanding meat more often that as just the occasional treat.

It's the scale of the thing that's troublesome. Too many people consuming and wasting too much; not enough land and water.