this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
511 points (94.3% liked)
Asklemmy
42502 readers
1436 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have a second one (and I say this as a 30-something who’s been vegetarian since middle school): if you judge it unethical to eat meat because you think the animals deserve life than you should also find items designed to look or feel like meat unacceptable.
You wouldn’t buy a pseudo human appendage at the meat market because it’s not just the reality that’s important it’s the entire idea that is abhorrent.
So, murder is wrong therefore simulated murder (movie, play, video game) is wrong? I'm not seeing the connection.
Usually things are wrong because of the harm thru cause. No harm? No foul.
Hmm “murder” is usually a legal term but I think a lot of people believe in justified killing in a lot of cases. Usually in a movie or game the character is put into a narrative or context where it’s okay or understandable for them to kill. Even in cases where the character is supposed to be evil and depraved the story teller is kind of playing off the viewer or player’s preconceived assumption that, for example, killing innocents is wrong.
Serving someone what looks like a cut of beef (but really isn’t) doesn’t similarly problematize the product with context like storytellers usually do in games and other stories. It’s simply mimicking the real thing. Maybe a vegan restaurant with gory peta imagery would be a good comparison to how we might problematize meat subs similar to how storytellers recognize the depravity of killing in their creations while still including killing.
A game or movie that included rape or reasonless murder in a fully positive context/narrative would either be art or really bad taste.
So if I think that it's bad that a sentient individual is killed for my taste plesure, I should also think it's bad if a non-sentient plant is seasoned to mimic meat and pressed into its form? How does that make sense?
Consider my cannibalism example (which is not actually cannibalism) or the example of whether AI child porn would be acceptable (I think most would find that it is not).
It's not cannibalism, if it's not human flesh so I don't see why that would be bad but even the idea that eating meat from the same species is worse than eating from another is weird to me (on a moral level). Just seems like more human supremacism.
Yes but I like the cannibalism example because it usually does a good job bringing forward the intuition I’m getting at with the hot take.
Another one is robot child sex worker—not hurting anyone directly (unless you believe in robot rights) but I think most people would deem it a problem. Looks like a duck sounds like a duck sort of thing.
But fake meats don't hurt anyone at all, not even indirectly. With your other examples one could argue that it's desensitizing to the real thing. But eating seitan instead of meat is a conscious decision that probably even reinforces how unethical it was to begin with to kill an animal for this.
Most vegans are against causing death and suffering to animals, not against how things taste. The abhorrent part is the killing, not the taste(for most vegans).
Also i think your definitions are self limiting without a reason. Seitan tastes like "meat", yet it is not. You cant just assign exclusivity on specific tastes. Those tastes can exist outside the realm of meat. But it is easier to talk about those things by referencing something that most people are familiar with(meat or sausage or burger).
Would you be ok if we assigned 16 digit numbers to specific tastes and then used that number to describe products that have that taste? Is the use of the word "meat" that is problematic to you?
meat substitutes go out of their way to mimic the taste of meat. Some even add characteristics that are supposed to mimic blood in the meat. To me, that is symbolically adding back in the violence and harm you are originally opposed to. If you just really like Jack fruit and it happens to taste similar to beef in some preparations I don’t think you’re a part of my ethical quandary.
Take robot or AI childporn as another example if cannibalism isn’t bringing home the intuition. It’s not harming children (at least directly) but it could reasonably be argued that it’s perpetuating and normalizing a violent and problematic practice.
It could be argued but i am not so sure about that. You could start arguing about how "i fucked my stepmother" porn normalizes abuse but would you? I think these are philosophical or psychological subjects that ultimately have no real studies behind them.
I'd like to believe that people are aware of the fundamental differences. These products are trying to appeal to non vegans who dont want to eat meat for health reasons. These people arent vegan in the first place. Is the existence of vegan meat equivalents make it harder or easier to convert these people into veganism? I think it makes it easier.
It doesnt "normalize" abuse, abuse is already normalized. It is trying to change people and change takes time. In your AI childporn example, childporn isnt normalized and i could see AI childporn normalizing it and increasing real life child abuse.
In the end, the animals dont care why they arent being killed. Me being vegan and not eating meat is as impactful as someone who isnt vegan and is eating a vegan meat equivalent. And this is the goal of veganism. Veganism isnt a religion, it isnt about purity, it isnt about you or your concepts of righteousness. It's about reducing death and suffering.
If you adopt a utilitarian perspective I agree (and I also totally agree that this is a matter of philosophy, clearly the norms do not support my hot take). If only the end matters and not the reasons, I agree that the ethical quandary falls away.
I tend to think utilitarian ethics are quite useful for states or organizations, but I don’t think individual ethics are typically the utilitarian kind (though we are surely influenced by utilitarian analysis for example a lot of vegans are vegan for straight up environmental reason and therefore wouldn’t even need to contemplate the ethics of fake meat beyond environmental impact). I think there’s a more innate sense of ethics that makes me not want to eat something as vital and curious as a cow or a chicken. I’m not trying to reduce the total amount of harm in the world, I just don’t want to be the cause of the death of another entity when I can help it. Eating a vegan burger that looks and feels like a beef burger feels like symbolic support of a practice I don’t support. Perhaps if all beef were pseudo beef that would change things.
Burgers look absolutely nothing like a dead animal. Carnists have already done the work to remove the imagery of the act of violence from eating meat. Most vegans wouldn't eat e.g. a vegan rotisserie chicken because that actually does look like a murdered animal.
Also, you can't be vegan for environmental reasons. Veganism is explicitly about ethics
why do you gatekeep?
So as not to muddy the vegan movement. Veganism is explicitly about ethics, and stretches beyond a diet and into anything else that involves animal products
imagine i'm asking people for money and they give me change but i specifically meant personal checks. this is you. this is you right now.
Not even close
But almost all the meat people eat (and vegan meats imitate) doesn't look like a dead animal. Find me a vegan who wants to eat a vegan suckling pig and you'll have an actual example, but no vegan would want that because the murder part is staring them in the face
I mean if (and that's a big if!) I can proactively confirm that no one was harmed in the making of the pseudo-human appendage then yeah I'd try one.
Well, definitely fits the prompt. Can I ask a follow up question? Why do you think it's unethical to eat meat?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the concept in general. Factory farms are hell holes. But I'm having trouble connecting your two points. But to me, the ethical issues with eating meat come down to the suffering the animal endured. If it's a meat substitute, or eventually lab grown meat, that suffering doesn't exist. So the ethical issues don't apply.
If it is unethical to eat a thing than it’s unethical to eat something acting like that thing. Consider my cannibalism example.
But it's not unethical to eat meat in itself, it's because of the needing to kill an animal. The taste/shape/flavor of meat isn't the unethical part right?
That'd be like saying it's unethical to take free gifts because stealing is wrong.
(I still eat meat substitutes but if I was being ethically consistent I think I shouldn’t).