this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
189 points (67.4% liked)
memes
22450 readers
3300 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I find chickens, and all avians in general, cute and I find it sickening the way they are treated... I do love eggs, they're tasty, versatile, easy to cook, and unbelievably healthy.
I think the differential we have to identify is one thing, and that is scale.
I am not a vegan, I do not believe it is wrong to consume animals or animal-sourced products, however I do support animal welfare and believe that if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient, thinking, feeling creatures that they are and cared for accordingly.
Imagine instead of human and animal rights we just had "sentient rights", for example.
Being able to test for sentience is a topic in and of itself, and out of scope for my argument.
I think there is no harm done in, a hypothetical world where people had the space to do such a thing, raising our own livestock, limited to individual homesteads or the immediate settlement (a local town market, for example).
The line where it becomes unethical is quite obvious really, are the animals treated as living things, or machines to simply fuel and feed to grow them for slaughter and harvest? Yes, in my example of fair treatment the goal may be to raise them for eventual slaughter, but its their lifelong treatment where this applies, not the overall objective.
But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?
Actually, counter-intuitively, strict veganism would objectively increase animal suffering if authentic alternatives exist. Which they do. But they are admittedly not easy to find. Ethical farms do exist, and typically self-regulate and self-support by selling the products the animals produce. Wool clothes, free-range eggs, end-of-life meat, excess milk & honey, etc. If your only 2 options are torture products, or nothing, then yes I 100% agree that veganism would be the correct choice. Between these 3 options though, giving your money to an ethical farmer objectively increases the livelihood of the animals under its care, more so than complete avoidance.
The way I see it, the tiny fraction of meat that's produced ethically should go to the tiny fraction of people with dietary restrictions that require meat.
The vast majority of people are not going out to investigate small farms to see if their practices are ethical. They are buying meat from a grocery store, and if they consider it at all, they might pick one with a label slapped on like "organic," completely meaningless thanks to lobbying.
Practically speaking, it is almost always a choice between torture products and nothing.
That's an argument for vegetarianism, not veganism. What about wool, honey, milk, eggs. And different countries have different mechanisms. Using the USA as a basis, is admittedly a bad example.
Here in Germany, there are very strict regulations on how living conditions can be claimed, ranging from 1(literal torture) to 5(outdoor access, pasture raised etc.) I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but I can't agree that it's impossible and pointless to try when there are places actively trying and actively supporting l.
Again, it's a matter of whether you're looking at things in the abstract, or in terms of how things actually work.
Take eggs for example. Eggs aren't just a byproduct of having chickens around, there are specific breeds that are dedicated to egg-laying. Because only a small number of males are needed for reproduction, most male chicks are put on a conveyor and ground to death. While I can't claim to be an expert in German laws, I did find that German courts have allowed this practice.
It's a similar story with milk. Because dairy cows are a different breed, male calves are typically slaughtered at birth. Dairy cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, suffer the stress of being separated from their young, and are killed as soon as the milk slows down, typically a quarter of their natural lifespans. Dairy is also similarly bad for the environment as beef, and there are widely available plant-based substitutes like oat milk that taste just as good, if not better.
No matter what animal product we're talking about, maximization of profits is almost always going to involve cruelty, environmental harm, and selective breeding to the point that any expectations about natural by-products aren't true. Even with regulations (which can be difficult to enact effectively), there are tradeoffs: limiting cruelty can increase environmental impact (as well as the price). If animal products were appropriately priced based on offsetting the harm they cause, they would be unable to compete against plant-based alternatives.
And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.
Yes, I agree that factory farming is horrific. Yes, I agree that people should eat less meat. Yes, I agree people need to be more aware of where their products come from.
However, just because you neighbor beats his dog doesn't mean everyone does.
And I repeat the same question I ask every time. Are you universally against ALL forms of animal domestication and husbandry? Eg. A small hobby farm that keeps a few chickens for eggs, and a few goats for milk.
Yes, because that's what 99% of the decisions of 99% of people involve. Just because it's theoretically possible to imagine a situation where these things are done ethically doesn't mean that's actually an option that is practically available.
I am not particularly interested in criticizing small farms with relatively ethical practices. My position, from my original comment, is, "But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?"
Is there a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to kill an innocent person?Suppose some space aliens say they'll destroy the world with a giant laser if you don't. That hypothetical does not change the fact that not killing innocent people is still a good general rule in the vast majority of situations you'll actually encounter in life. To throw out all reservations against murder just because of that hypothetical would be making a rule from the exception.
Likewise, I'm sure you can imagine a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to consume animal products, but unless that situation is an actual, real thing in your life, that you've looked into to verify is the case (which the example of eggs in Germany makes me skeptical of), then what you're doing is throwing out a generally good rule based on an unrealistic hypothetical, just because following the rule would be inconvenient.