But then you're still causing plants pain by farming and eating them. Isn't that argument no different than saying if you believe that harming animals causes them pain, you should be in favor of eating the ones that are hunted because farming them causes more pain?

I really don't know if plants can cause pain and I think the environmental arguments for not eating meat are far more compelling than the ethical ones, but regardless, I think this is a poor argument for veganism.

[–] BlackDragon@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But then you’re still causing plants pain by farming and eating them. Isn’t that argument no different than saying if you believe that harming animals causes them pain, you should be in favor of eating the ones that are hunted because farming them causes more pain?

If you insist on animal abuse then you should do it through hunting rather than factory farming precisely because of the diminished amount of suffering caused. But it's still more suffering than would be caused by just eating plants so I'm not sure I understand your point

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm talking about an argument for veganism though. If you are saying that it's acceptable for people to eat hunted meat, you're not saying they should be vegans. And you're encouraging a massive increase in hunting.

[–] BlackDragon@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What part of my reference to it as animal abuse sounds like an endorsement of the practice? I'm not sure about you, but personally I consider animal abuse to be unacceptable.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay, then I think you're completely missing my point, which is that arguing that causing less pain is good is a bad argument for veganism. Causing no pain would be the ethical argument, wouldn't it? Causing less pain would still be unethical, right?

It's sort of like trying to convince someone committing genocide they should stop by telling them they should slow down.

[–] flerp@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not sort of like that though because the practicality of the matter is that humans have to eat to survive but they don't have to genocide to survive. Reducing suffering as much as possible being the goal rather than eliminating it completely is not a new concept in philosophy considering eliminating suffering completely is impossible.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If it is only about reducing suffering as much as possible, would harvesting the meat from euthanized pets be acceptable?

[–] flerp@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

I don't really have an answer to that, it is an interesting question. For me personally I don't hold any attachment or feelings to the bodies of the deceased. When I die I'm getting one of those mushroom suits that decomposes you and quickly returns you to nature. But some people are much more attached to the bodies of the deceased whether for spiritual reasons or otherwise and I can't really speak for them. Would eating the euthanized pets cause suffering to their previous owners, I really have no answer for that, I assume there would be some people who would suffer from that and some who wouldn't mind. The quality of the meat I think would be very low though considering it would mostly be very senior animals with many health issues.

[–] BlackDragon@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

If the only animal corpses anyone ate was euthanized pet remains and the practice was somehow free of influencing the unnecessary euthanization of more pets, I can't say I care. Same way I don't really care if people eat roadkill or animal products from a dumpster. I'm not going to do it, I don't see these things as food. And I think there's a minuscule harm done in the proliferation of the perception of these things as food. But that harm is negligible in the face of animal agriculture which is my primary concern.