Okay, but that’s a whataboutism and has nothing to do with animals. Think about the lowly bee, for example. People often get tripped up when it comes to bugs and veganism. They’re smaller, and must be dumber right? And anyway their minds work in such an alien way to our own that we can’t assume they even perceive things the way that we do.
And yet if you poke a beehive, the behavior of its inhabitants appears to be something that’s functionally identical to anger, and they begin defending their colony in a way where they seem to be expressing something that strongly resembles a lack of consent to having their home assaulted. So even in this case of such a vastly different kind of animal it’s natural to conclude that any taking of their honey is not wanted - not consented to - and thus is a form of exploitation.
If a dog is excited to see you, and trying their best to chase your hands with their head, is that not a form of the dog giving you consent for pets? Animals to some limited degree can give consent for things like that at least. But most other things, if they can’t give consent then you should assume that you shouldn’t do the thing.
A chicken has eggs for their own reasons. They can’t give consent to give them away, but be realistic - do you really think there’s a chance that a hen would consent to you taking what she believes are going to be her children? They are not yours to take. Why is my position of respecting consent and not exploiting animals absurd, as compared to concluding wholesale that they just can’t give consent and therefor… what? Do we just do whatever we want to them?
I wouldn’t say that I premise exploitation on consent. Afterall I’m being exploited at a minimum wage job, and that is something that I more or less consented to.
But in the case of animals, consent has to play a significant role, because a core part of their oppression is the complete absence of their bodily autonomy. There is a great deal of intersectionality between women’s rights and non-human animal’s rights.
I wouldn’t say that consent is the premise of my opposition, just one important component of it. I don’t remember this discussion so well anymore, but earlier you had pointed out that exploited workers often do consent to their exploitation - and I would agree that exploitation can occur even with consent.
They can’t give consent to give them away, but be realistic - do you really think there’s a chance that a hen would consent to you taking what she believes are going to be her children?
she would need to believe that. i have no evidence that chickens believe their eggs to be their children.
Let’s say they don’t recognize property claims. Why does that then make it right for you to take their eggs?
Many say the native Americans didn’t understand the European concept of owning land (property claim). I’m not sure whether that’s true, but if it were would that then mean it was okay for Europeans to take their land?
Your logic doesn’t make sense to me. “They can’t say ‘no’ and they probably don’t understand property so I’ll just go ahead and do what I want.” Lame
Why does that then make it right for you to take their eggs?
i’m saying there is no reason it’s not ok to take the eggs, and recognition of property rights can’t possibly be a good reason not to do so. it’s possible there is some reason, but it can’t be that the chickens think the eggs belong to them, since there is no evidence for that claim.
How is it not a whataboutism? You’re talking about a completely different form of exploitation that has nothing to do with animals (unless we’re talking about habitat destruction displacing wild animals).
When someone is intoxicated to the point that they can’t make informed consent to have relations with another person, does that give the other person the right to just declare that consent plays no role and is absurd? No, the correct response to someone being unable to consent, is that it’s an automatic no. The same should apply for non-human animals.
A chicken can’t consent to their eggs being taken, so they should be left alone. A cow can’t consent to being artificially inseminated, so they shouldn’t be forcibly impregnated just so their milk can be stolen (another thing they can’t consent to).
Oh and btw, I’m reticent to even mention this because it was only an appeal to authority in the first place, but the Vegan Society has materials on their site where they talk about why raising animals for their products is unethical - and the animals being unable to consent is part of that discussion.
it was only an appeal to authority in the first place
i think most vegans say that the vegan society’s definition is the one tehy use. it’s pointless to argue without clear definitions, so i chose one i thought would be acceptable. do you have another definition you would prefer?
the Vegan Society has materials on their site where they talk about why raising animals for their products is unethical - and the animals being unable to consent is part of that discussion.
i have never dug for those but i’m fascinated by what arguments they present.
why? if something categorically can’t consent, that is not the same as a person, which categorically is capable of consent even if the particular circumstances preclude that capability. why should we treat plants, fungi, animas, machines, or other artifacts as though they might be able to consent? our standards for behavior should be the same for all of the vis-a-vis consent.
I would say that in their own way most animals can communicate their desires, and to at least some degree we can infer consent or non-consent from that. Chickens tend to be protective of their eggs, so it’s reasonable to conclude that they wouldn’t consent to us taking them. Same with bees and honey. And certainly the same with cows and the entire process of producing dairy. In addition to the sexual assault that people do to get cows pregnant, it’s well known that when baby cows are separated from their mothers, the mothers cry out loudly for their children for several days.
But again, I do agree that consent is not the only criteria. We should seek a point where our societies no longer see sentient living beings as products or commodities full stop. And I think that this commodification of thinking, living beings bleeds out and serves as the archetype of our commodification of each other, like in the way that the capitalist sees their “workers” as a form of “capital”.
in an argument regarding veganism, someone has purported that non-vegans are acting immorally because the animals do not consent to their exploitation. the second person has stated that the definition vis-a-vis the vegan society makes no mention of consent and further argues it is absurd to cosider consent from something incapable of granting it (consent being informed, and non-human animals lacking the capability to be informed). the second person makes a comparison to the exploitation of fossil fuel deposits, saying tehy oppose that exploitation, as well, and the opposition has nothing to do with consent.
the first person has asserted this is a form of “what about ism” while the second rebutted that it is just an argument from analogy. can you clear up this conflict about the form of the argument?
You’re right, there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here about the type of argument being used. Let’s break it down:
First Person's Argument: This is an argument from rights. They argue that animals have a right to not be exploited, similar to how humans have rights. The concept of consent is used to highlight that animals cannot give permission for their exploitation.
Second Person's Argument: This is a combination of two things:
Definition: They point out that the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society doesn't explicitly mention consent. This is true, the focus is on minimizing animal exploitation.
Analogy: They compare animal exploitation to fossil fuel exploitation. Both are seen as harmful, but the second person argues consent isn't relevant in the case of fossil fuels.
Who’s right?
The second person is correct that the Vegan Society definition doesn't mention consent.
However, the second person's analogy isn't perfect. Fossil fuels are inanimate objects, while animals are sentient beings. Consent might not be directly applicable, but the argument about minimizing harm to sentient creatures still stands.
What’s the better approach?
The first person could expand their argument beyond consent. They could talk about the negative impacts of animal agriculture on animal welfare, the environment, and human health.
The second person could acknowledge the sentience of animals and the ethical concerns around their treatment, even without using the term consent.
Here’s how the conversation could progress:
First Person: “You’re right, consent might not be the best term. But factory farms cause immense suffering to animals. We have a moral obligation to minimize that.”
Second Person: “I agree that factory farms are problematic. Perhaps we can discuss ways to improve animal welfare practices within the current system, while also exploring alternatives like plant-based proteins.”
This shift would move the conversation from a debate about semantics to a more productive discussion about solutions.
they’re not arguing about whether veganism is right: they’re arguing about which motivations are reasonable.
You’re right, that changes the context of the argument. Here’s how the argument form breakdown changes:
First Person's Argument: This is still an appeal to rights, but focused on motivation. They argue that animal lack of consent is a strong ethical reason for veganism.
Second Person's Argument: This is an argument based on the definition of veganism and the limitations of using consent as a universal motivator. They argue the ethical stance of veganism can exist without relying on consent.
Who’s right?
Both have valid points. The first person highlights a core ethical concern for many vegans.
The second person is correct that the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society prioritizes minimizing exploitation, not consent specifically.
Better approach for the argument about motivations:
First Person: Acknowledge the broader definition. "Yes, veganism is about minimizing exploitation, and for me, animal sentience and their inability to consent to their treatment are key reasons why I believe exploiting them is wrong."
Second Person: Acknowledge the ethical weight of the first person's concern. "I understand how animal sentience and lack of consent can be strong motivators for veganism. Perhaps there are other ethical frameworks within veganism that resonate with you as well?"
This approach allows them to:
Agree on the core goal of minimizing exploitation.
Discuss the various ethical motivations that can lead someone to veganism.
This can lead to a more nuanced discussion about the different reasons people choose a vegan lifestyle.
would you call the second person’s argument whataboutism?
No, in this context, the second person’s argument wouldn’t be considered a true whataboutism. Here’s why:
Whataboutism: A whataboutism is a fallacy where you deflect criticism by bringing up an irrelevant issue. The goal is to distract from the original point.
Second Person's Argument: Here, the second person isn't trying to distract. They are directly addressing the first person's point about consent being the key motivator for veganism.
They use the definition of veganism to show consent isn't the only factor.
The fossil fuel analogy highlights that other ethical concerns (environmental harm) can motivate a similar stance (opposing exploitation).
It’s more like an analogy with limitations. The second person is trying to show that the concept of consent isn’t universally applicable within the ethical framework of veganism. However, the analogy isn’t perfect because animals are sentient beings, unlike fossil fuels.
So, what could it be called?
There isn’t a single term that perfectly captures the second person’s argument. It’s a combination of:
Redefining the Scope: They argue the definition of veganism is broader than just consent.
Analogy with Limitations: They use the fossil fuel example to show other ethical concerns exist.
By acknowledging these points, the first person can still argue that consent, or the lack thereof, is a powerful motivator for them personally within the broader ethical framework of veganism.
Okay, but that’s a whataboutism and has nothing to do with animals. Think about the lowly bee, for example. People often get tripped up when it comes to bugs and veganism. They’re smaller, and must be dumber right? And anyway their minds work in such an alien way to our own that we can’t assume they even perceive things the way that we do.
And yet if you poke a beehive, the behavior of its inhabitants appears to be something that’s functionally identical to anger, and they begin defending their colony in a way where they seem to be expressing something that strongly resembles a lack of consent to having their home assaulted. So even in this case of such a vastly different kind of animal it’s natural to conclude that any taking of their honey is not wanted - not consented to - and thus is a form of exploitation.
There’s nothing absurd about valuing consent.
it’s fine to value consent. but it’s absurd to talk about consent from something incapable of it.
If a dog is excited to see you, and trying their best to chase your hands with their head, is that not a form of the dog giving you consent for pets? Animals to some limited degree can give consent for things like that at least. But most other things, if they can’t give consent then you should assume that you shouldn’t do the thing.
A chicken has eggs for their own reasons. They can’t give consent to give them away, but be realistic - do you really think there’s a chance that a hen would consent to you taking what she believes are going to be her children? They are not yours to take. Why is my position of respecting consent and not exploiting animals absurd, as compared to concluding wholesale that they just can’t give consent and therefor… what? Do we just do whatever we want to them?
i think it’s fine to oppose exploitation. it’s absurd to premise that opposition on consent.
I wouldn’t say that I premise exploitation on consent. Afterall I’m being exploited at a minimum wage job, and that is something that I more or less consented to.
But in the case of animals, consent has to play a significant role, because a core part of their oppression is the complete absence of their bodily autonomy. There is a great deal of intersectionality between women’s rights and non-human animal’s rights.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Sexual_Politics_of_Meat.html?id=aU28CgAAQBAJ
i’m saying you premise your opposition to exploitation on consent. and i’m saying that’s absurd.
I wouldn’t say that consent is the premise of my opposition, just one important component of it. I don’t remember this discussion so well anymore, but earlier you had pointed out that exploited workers often do consent to their exploitation - and I would agree that exploitation can occur even with consent.
she would need to believe that. i have no evidence that chickens believe their eggs to be their children.
You don’t need to know what a chicken believes to recognize that their behaviours indicate they do not want others to steal their eggs.
as far as i know, chickens don’t recognize property claims. they cannot possibly have a moral opposition or even a personal revulsion toward theft.
Let’s say they don’t recognize property claims. Why does that then make it right for you to take their eggs?
Many say the native Americans didn’t understand the European concept of owning land (property claim). I’m not sure whether that’s true, but if it were would that then mean it was okay for Europeans to take their land?
Your logic doesn’t make sense to me. “They can’t say ‘no’ and they probably don’t understand property so I’ll just go ahead and do what I want.” Lame
i’m saying there is no reason it’s not ok to take the eggs, and recognition of property rights can’t possibly be a good reason not to do so. it’s possible there is some reason, but it can’t be that the chickens think the eggs belong to them, since there is no evidence for that claim.
it’s not a what aboutism.
How is it not a whataboutism? You’re talking about a completely different form of exploitation that has nothing to do with animals (unless we’re talking about habitat destruction displacing wild animals).
what aboutism is a form of tu quoque. I’m not making any kind of accusation, I’m making an argument from analogy.
Can you demonstrate an example of animal exploitation where consent does not play a role?
since no animal can be informed, consent never plays a role. it’s absurd.
When someone is intoxicated to the point that they can’t make informed consent to have relations with another person, does that give the other person the right to just declare that consent plays no role and is absurd? No, the correct response to someone being unable to consent, is that it’s an automatic no. The same should apply for non-human animals.
A chicken can’t consent to their eggs being taken, so they should be left alone. A cow can’t consent to being artificially inseminated, so they shouldn’t be forcibly impregnated just so their milk can be stolen (another thing they can’t consent to).
Oh and btw, I’m reticent to even mention this because it was only an appeal to authority in the first place, but the Vegan Society has materials on their site where they talk about why raising animals for their products is unethical - and the animals being unable to consent is part of that discussion.
i think most vegans say that the vegan society’s definition is the one tehy use. it’s pointless to argue without clear definitions, so i chose one i thought would be acceptable. do you have another definition you would prefer?
No that was a good call, I do also refer back to the Vegan Society’s definition.
i have never dug for those but i’m fascinated by what arguments they present.
why? if something categorically can’t consent, that is not the same as a person, which categorically is capable of consent even if the particular circumstances preclude that capability. why should we treat plants, fungi, animas, machines, or other artifacts as though they might be able to consent? our standards for behavior should be the same for all of the vis-a-vis consent.
I would say that in their own way most animals can communicate their desires, and to at least some degree we can infer consent or non-consent from that. Chickens tend to be protective of their eggs, so it’s reasonable to conclude that they wouldn’t consent to us taking them. Same with bees and honey. And certainly the same with cows and the entire process of producing dairy. In addition to the sexual assault that people do to get cows pregnant, it’s well known that when baby cows are separated from their mothers, the mothers cry out loudly for their children for several days.
But again, I do agree that consent is not the only criteria. We should seek a point where our societies no longer see sentient living beings as products or commodities full stop. And I think that this commodification of thinking, living beings bleeds out and serves as the archetype of our commodification of each other, like in the way that the capitalist sees their “workers” as a form of “capital”.
No, in this context, the second person’s argument wouldn’t be considered a true whataboutism. Here’s why:
It’s more like an analogy with limitations. The second person is trying to show that the concept of consent isn’t universally applicable within the ethical framework of veganism. However, the analogy isn’t perfect because animals are sentient beings, unlike fossil fuels.
So, what could it be called?
There isn’t a single term that perfectly captures the second person’s argument. It’s a combination of:
By acknowledging these points, the first person can still argue that consent, or the lack thereof, is a powerful motivator for them personally within the broader ethical framework of veganism.
What is this technology?
i don’t recall whether i used bard or copilot for this, but i am thinking i used copilot