Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from [email protected] 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.
Linking the affected users and mods: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Isn't it pretty apparent?
If it can feel pain and suffer it shouldn't.
Bacteria do not have the capability to feel suffering. They cannot even feel.
Plants and fungi, despite their increased complexity, do not have the capability to suffer either.
The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering. Torture is bad because it causes suffering. Killing is bad because it causes suffering. Slavery is bad because it causes suffering. Rape is bad because it causes suffering. Abuse is bad because is causes suffering.
Veganism extends this to animals who are capable of suffering in ways identical to us humans. It also raises important questions: Would it be ethical to treat aliens the same way humanity treats non-humans? What if the aliens are sufficiently stupid, yet still capable of civilization? What if they're smarter but live in solitude? Why exactly is it unethical to kill severely mentally disabled people? Is it just because humans view themselves as superior to every other living being in the universe?
I believe veganism is the objectively moral choice. Still, I'm not vegan for various reasons. But I don't have any qualms with admitting my behavior is objectively wrong.
this is just a lie. one type of ethical study, utilitarianism, is focused on that. many ethical theories don't regard suffering at all, or only as a facet of some other concern.
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.
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.
you can't prove this
you can't prove this
When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of "pain, as processed by a nervous system".
At least for bacteria, their structures are simple enough to be understood to a large extent by humans. We know chemical reactions cannot suffer and we know proteins cannot suffer. Due to the simple nature of bacteria, it is highly doubtful that they are capable of suffering since all "processing" occurs through varying level of chemicals and minerals.
But I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering. Rather, the ability to experience suffering must be proven.
FWIW I don't think you need to define suffering so narrowly to make an argument for veganism or vegetarianism. You can accept that plants do feel suffering and still do it. Because the amount of plants that get killed per kilojoule of energy in beef (feeding the cows) is way more than the amount of plants killed per kilojoule of directly eating plants.
you got there eventually.
if you define it in a way that specifically precludes other creatures, that seems biased. you don't know how a single-celled organism might be able to suffer. that doesn't mean that they can't.