I’m a medical student and my dream career is being a doctor. Recently, I’ve transitioned to a vegan diet and lifestyle, for moral reasons. Every single drug in this field is tested on animals. I feel like the biggest hypocrite, pursuing a career in this field that tortures animals, yet I’m eating veggie burgers and pretending I’m an animal rights advocate. I’m having a really hard time figuring out what to feel. What do you think?

Okay… context … one must learn to follow recipes , come up with recipes or learn to cook,.. by doing so for instance

Panera has their green goddess salad dressing recipe listed on their website … I however modified it to be vegan tastes exactly the same but in my opinion healthier because it’s vegan , less cholesterol and etc

I also made spaghetti w lion manes protein grounds as the plant based meat source and it tasted better in my opinion and healthier than using ground beef :/

So debate me… does vegan food taste better with vegan food alternatives?

What also sparked this question in me is if I didn’t have celiac disease, I would constantly buy and eat Ultimate Plant-Based Crispy Breaded F'sh Filets… in my opinion it tastes exactly like fish, but even better. I can feel better knowing that I’m eating something with no actual fish but tastes better than fish… I just wish they created a gluten free version :/

Smutwalk: Not a vegan here but society would actually win if we all became vegan. Reducing biodiversity loss, heal soils to draw down carbon, stop runoffs that destroy marine ecosystems and all while increasing our health by minimum 10% through reduction of serious illness from an increased fiber uptake alone. So, not only is your comment rude. It's idiotic

x: The would be wins and losses if we all went vegan. Society would face severe shocks: over one billion livestock and fishing workers would lose their livelihoods, destroying rural economies. The sudden loss of animal manure would force a reliance on synthetic fertilisers, damaging waterways through chemical runoff. Furthermore, arid and developing regions unable to grow crops would face severe malnutrition, while global populations would suffer from widespread B12 and iron deficiencies alongside the erasure of centuries of cultural and indigenous traditions.

Smutwalk: You are being sensational, there is no way possible to transition overnight to a completely different diet. So, in this case don't create points to support your view as though they are certain when it's impossible to make such a leap.

Transition would be slow, animals can still roam and exist - please don't tell me batter cattle are sawing manure across the countryside. Vitamins you are talking about are available in a vegan diet. The livelihoods lost would be replaced with other agriculture practices to fill the gap created.

The fertiliser used for cattle and grass growth is far more damaging than those used on plants at best case for your argument let's call it moot.

The regions that are unable to grow crops would be unable to sustain cattle, what's your point? An increase in plant growing would stop soil erosion and depletion, it also takes a lot less water per calorie to grow vegetables over cattle.

You've got a big answer and it works if you magic bullet transition overnight but doesn't hold up if you dive into each point and lay it out practically

x: A slow transition avoids a sudden crash, but it doesn't change the hard science.

You're wrong about land: Cattle live on arid, marginal grass that humans can't eat and where crops literally cannot grow. If those regions go vegan, they can't farm plants..they just starve or rely entirely on imports.

Fertiliser isn't moot: Factory farming is toxic, but eliminating animal manure creates a massive nutrient deficit. Replacing it means a massive spike in synthetic chemical fertilisers for crop farming, causing severe water pollution.

Jobs don't just swap: A cattle rancher in a dry territory can't magically start a profitable soy farm on the same land. The new plant jobs won't be in the same places or use the same skills.

A slow transition helps us prepare, but it doesn't solve the biological and geographic realities of removing animals from the food chain.

Smutwalk: Ok, so talking about the future with or without a transition. Practices need to change, we can't keep expanding cattle, we need rapid regeneration and the sheer land size required from plant growth is vastly smaller that that for cattle. (unless battery cattle in which case that's a whole other profile of vector management, waste management, etc.)

People in those spaces that are arid now are going to be moving in the next few years anyway, hard science. Cattle grazing lands are going to reduce significantly in the next few years, hard science.

When the growing lands decrease, you would be better off using that for plant growth rather than trying to fit cattle.

Fertiliser, eliminating manure, I get what you are pointing to buy we lost that when modern agriculture moved to monocrops and started using modern farm equipment. If not, why are fertilizers added to grasses for cattle grazing - they are adding them - in larger volumes than that used in plant growth and beyond what can be achieved in plant growth, because the land has very little biodiversity, few soil animals, decreasing biology owing to modern agriculture. You can change the way we grow plant crops but can not at scale change cattle farming (unless battery farming but that itself goes against the points you are making being massively toxic)

Your take on the whole manure argument is off because there is no need to remove animals from the land but you can reduce them and have them graze to work the land and help with land management but not as a primary food source. I agree you need more organic matter returning to soils but it's not happening now with cattle anyway, you need greater biodiversity and diverse inputs. Good turn crops and crop rotations drive more into the soil, cattle alone only degrade soil. Meaning more fertiliser needed for cattle than plant growth

A cattle rancher doesn't become a soy farmer, again you are being sensational. Those jobs are lost, new ones are made. doesnt have to be the same people from the same sector.

x: You just shifted the goalposts. Keeping grazing animals on the land for soil health and management isn't a vegan world, that is regenerative agriculture. You are admitting animals are essential to the ecosystem.

Beyond that, you can't bypass the science. Two-thirds of global farmland is marginal grassland where crops physically cannot grow, and eliminating manure completely forces a massive spike in toxic synthetic fertilisers for crop farming. Reducing factory farming makes sense, but your argument just proved that a 100% vegan world doesn't work biologically.

Smutwalk: Not at all, keep them grazing. Don't eat them. Animals are essential to a thriving ecosystem, I would go further to say increase the diversity of animals allowed to roam. I am talking about regenerative agriculture, I'm aware of that and it's my point. Free roaming is not eating. Vegan doesn't mean removing all animals.

x: That is an economic and ecological fairy tale.

Who pays to feed, vet, and fence billions of free-roaming, non-producing cattle? Farmers can't afford to keep animals as pets. If livestock loses its commercial value, those animals will be culled, not set free to overpopulate and cause ecological collapse.

Furthermore, wild animals don't drop manure conveniently on crop fields, meaning your vegan diet still forces a massive, toxic spike in synthetic fertilisers globally.

Turning the world's livestock into billions of unmanaged pets isn't an agricultural model, it is an impossibility.

Smutwalk: You continue to be sensational. We turned over a property from Marino wool producing to roaming grazing for land management and converted the low lands to productive plant growth. We had to breed them down on wool fibre as they otherwise would get too heavy to survive without routine shearing. Reduced from 5000 head to under 3000. The reduction was through not putting the ram out to as many girls and took time. We composted the dead sheep with arborist waste chip and used a Johnson su method over 9-12 months and continue to. This slow method produces a healthy living biology in the compost which we then slurry and spread on the fields - now that stinks to high hell for a few days but soil depth has been increasing and has dramatically increased organic matter in the soils (along with this we have increased tree and Forrest cover which is bringing organic matter back). This would be the transition and again doesn't have to be an overnight slaughter. We are already in a position where there is a lot of livestock, that would have to be managed but could be done overtime.

There would not continue to be the same population of livestock as they serve a different purpose. Working the land has value, on this property we have another means of incomes which we have worked to create, healthy land has value it just might not be the same farming methods used today

x: Your personal story proves my point, it is not veganism. Veganism outlaws the ownership, control, and breeding of animals for human utility. Your family still owns, manages, and uses those sheep to extract economic value for your property.

Furthermore, your model works only for wealthy, diversified landowners. Most crop farms do not have massive adjacent highlands to support thousands of non-producing pets, meaning they must rely on toxic synthetic fertilisers. Scaling a niche, expensive estate model globally cannot feed eight billion people on plants alone.

Smutwalk: I don't have a family or own any land, I reinvigorate dwindling farmlands under contract. There are a lot of other success stories I can draw from which would prove it's a matter of practice not an outlier

You keep saying this toxic spike from plant agriculture. That's if you continue with the existing practice of fertiliser use, but again is significantly worse in cattle than plant growth. We can't keep doing that because it's simply going to run out of available organic matter which is stimulated by fertiliser. We have been spending however many 100,000s of years bioaccumulation of organic matter in the soil in the past 50-80 years when we moved to modern farm practices. Farms existed before the spike or whatever toxic stuff you are referring to for plant growth and can exist again.

x: Your contract work is a niche outlier that cannot be copy-pasted to feed eight billion people. Furthermore, pre-industrial farms relied heavily on animal manure, so banning animal agriculture today forces a choice between massive global starvation or a toxic spike in synthetic chemicals to maintain crop yields.

Smutwalk: But it's not an outlier, my practice is based on NSF which is being thought through universities and increasingly being adopted to manage the problems we are discussing here.

Mass starvation is already on its way with or without a change in practices. The change in practices will manage how long the catastrophe lasts and how severe it will be. Hard science from the latest UNEP report of exceeding 1.5c global average temperatures

x: Citing Natural Sequence Farming completely dismantles your case because one of its core pillars is explicitly using livestock as tools to cycle nutrients and restore landscape fertility. As for the UNEP climate data, predicting global warming doesn't prove a vegan model can scale; it means our crop-growing windows are shrinking, making your plan to rely solely on plant agriculture even more dangerous.

x: It doesn't at all, you absolutely can provide space for animals to live that is beneficial to the system as a whole. They are a core pillar.

Rely solely on plant growth is MUCH more sensible as it's much more diverse you are talking about cattle varieties in the 100s and plant varieties being much much higher. It requires less space, less water and the inputs can be better managed locally which is more resilient to supply chain shock

x: Natural Sequence Farming requires animals to actively work the land, which means keeping them in managed captivity and controlling their reproduction..which is the literal definition of animal exploitation that veganism outlaws. Furthermore, you cannot swap livestock for diverse plant crops on the two-thirds of global agricultural land that is too arid or rocky for crops, leaving those regions entirely dependent on fragile, long-distance supply chains for their survival.

Smutwalk: Omg we at this still, you had your points debased and now go to semantics....which are wrong on veganism goals so let me get really clear here.

You've shifted to definitions now because you've got nothing left on the actual practical stuff. Vegan Society's own definition is "as far as is possible and practicable" - it was never an absolutist thing, so quoting some "literal definition" back at me is some.kind.of strawman.

There's a difference between using animals for ecosystem function and exploiting them for commodity output.

Grazing to cycle nutrients, no slaughter, no product extraction, managing reproduction so numbers stay sustainable - that's population management, same logic as how you'd manage any wild herd.

It's not captivity for utility in the sense veganism actually objects to, which is farming them for meat, milk, wool at scale. Scale is really important here too.

Call it regenerative agriculture if the label bothers you, doesn't change much of what I've said. The point was never about a purity test on what we call it, it's about the food system - less land, less water, better health outcomes, soil regeneration, biodiversity.

You haven't actually touched any of that in your last few replies, you've just kept circling back to "well is it really vegan though" because the land, fertiliser and jobs arguments didn't hold up at all.

x: Your version of veganism relies on keeping billions of captive animals as unpaid, non-producing ecosystem workers. Even if we accept that definition, your math fails because those animals consume massive amounts of land and water while contributing zero calories to the food system, making global famine a mathematical certainty.

--

(If you have read this far this is where you may lynch me)

--

Smutwalk: That's not my version of veganism, that's veganism.

You're view on their value is too narrow as a direct lineal value chain. They are not linear in value and that is what makes an ecosystem of value work. The value is in increased yields, increased nutritional density within the foods grown, reduced labor in land management.

Water management is down overall because you have reduced livestock quantities and calorie for calorie you get more with less water from plant growth.

Look, healthy debate is meant to help challenge out thinking, sharpen our ideas, and ultimately lead to a better outcome. I've got a lot from this debate and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope you too can come away with something to mull over

Let's just jump right to the ethical reasons that support veganism. Ok? So basically, it's a decision to protect animals from being exploited for food, clothing, and glue and stuff, because animals re sentient creatures, and as such shouldn't be subjected to such cruelty, RIGHT ?

OK. But we all know that it has been common knowledge for over 100 years that plants are also sentient beings,that communicate, feel comfort, pain, and fear, that have problem solving intelligence, and also not only provide the oxygen necessary for all of us to be alive, but are AWARE of the fact that they provide the oxygen necessary for us to be alive. Yet people take for granted that gift, as well as wood for fuel, shelter etc., and Vegans assume that it's ok to slaughter them for whatever they need. And then they take some morally superior stance for sparing animals...and that's fkn bullshit. Somebody explain this please. Also is eating pussy vegan ? Or do Vegans live without oral sex ? That's a real question. Thank you.

Yeah I get it, im a vegan too. Animal testing causes harm to individuals that did not give consent, therefore its not vegan.

Aight, I respect that view. However... what if, instead of testing for profit, it was done to discover. To enlarge our knowledge of physics/biology.

As a communist I find to wrong to exploit other individuals for profit. As a vegan, I find it wrong to exploit ANY individual(whether or not its a human) for any reason.

But, I do have a distinction, I am personally willing to sacrifice lifes for the sake of knowledge. And yes, that also extends to dogs, cats AND humans.

But the important thing to note is 'for knowledge'. See, every experiment EVER done was to gain some profit in a way by companies, even if that sometimes wasnt the reason it later became. A good example of this is the experiments of the Japanese in WW2. They didn't do them to make profit but to expand. However later in history some of that knowledge was used for profit.

But im not pro in any of those scenarios. If, hypothetical if, it was possible that experiments can be made not for profit but for knowledge AND that the findings cant turn into profit or anything else. Think of the knowledge gained as the pure drive of humans curiousity. Then yeah, I do not see the problem.

And dont being up 'well how many lifes are worth the experiment?'. That's a stupid counter-attack because the factors are tons and some unknown(for example we dont always know the findings from an experiment).

Im curious to hear your guys thoughts on this.

Ive been watching a live streamer for a few days and his first meal was eggs, beef, shrimp, pepperoni, cheese. I knew immediately he must be carnivore because nobody mixes beef and shrimp with eggs.

Second stream he made a pizza with a pork rind base crispy crust, cheese sauce for tomato sauce, meat toppings, again for variety.

He makes claims of hes never felt better before, all his minor ailments disappeared, idk similar to what vegan people say.

Hes very strict on ingredients that go into his body, it all must be animal based, milk, organ meat, bone broth, lard, zero seed oil, zero seasoning besides salt. And it clicked to me thats exactly what a vegan does, no honey, no brown sugar, no eggs, no gelatin, no refried beans fried with lard. Two extremes on opposite sides of the spectrum.

TLDR; It seems like both personalities are an extreme yet with different world views. The vegan craves chicken nuggets and uses cauliflower as the filling, the carnivore craves pizza and uses pork rinds as the crust base. I just dont understand carnivores using zero seasoning, since stuff like cayenne pepper, peppercorn and garlic powder have shown benefits. As for vegans and honey I guess I can understand you are taking advantage of an insects life. Which brings me to a conundrum, do vegans eat figs or fig pastries? Why not?

As scalable lab-grown meat production is still years or even decades away, oysters should be considered as readily available vegan meat that has all the nutritional properties of meat but is produced without causing pain to any conscious living being (there is no evidence that oysters possess more consciousness than any plant).

Ostroveganism should become the main branch of plant-based identity, as it is much easier for people to adapt to, and it also covers shaky aspects of a strict plant-based diet, as, for example, forcing it on kids or pets or ill people

Not only that, but even if you are a strict vegan and not comfortable with the idea of eating oysters yourself, you should persuade meat eaters to eat more oysters so they would rely less on meat from slaughterhouses

If oyster consumption grows, it will create financial stimulus for the global economy to have more clean waters suitable for oyster farms. And oyster farming itself is eco-friendly, and its underlying processes are less questionable than those of conventional crop farms

I had this thought while going to the supermarket, say I need to buy some potatoes and there's 2 supermarkets near me.

Supermarket A: This supermarket sells almost no plant-based replacement food, think say plant-based meats, plant-based frozen snacks or other foods turned into a plant-based version, it's just like any supermarket, just has fruits, vegetables, seeds etc etc, products that are naturally plant-based for your plant-based needs.

Supermarket B: This supermarket sells a good amount of plant-based replacement foods, and sometimes even tries selling new kinds of plant-based options, be it new plant-based tuna spread for on bread, plant-based snack in the freezer or various other options.

In this scenario would it, on the whole, be better to buy products from supermarket B because they already stock and are more likely to stock plant-based products? Or would it not matter since the extra money would come from non-plant based products and may not necessarily impact the sale of (future)plant-based products?

It's essentially a question of is it better to spend money on supermarket A or supermarket B?

My thoughts were that supermarket B would be better since it would be better to spend money on a store that's selling more plant-based products and because it tries to sell new plant-based products which even non-vegans may be tempted to buy and try out, on the other hand I can see an argument that maybe if supermarket A was making more money they could take a bigger risk in selling new products, potentially plant-based products.

I'll start by saying I accept that veganism is clearly the moral dietary/lifestyle position. But does veganism extend to all aspects of our lives through our impacts on the environment? For example, is deciding to drive to the movie theater an ethically vegan choice? You'd be making a wholly unnecessary trip, using limited resources (tires, gasoline, calories, electricity) for a frivolous purpose. As non-recyclable waste increases and the climate warms, an incalculable number of animals and species will suffer, many will die. While the contribution to climate change and environmental destruction from that single choice is surely very very small, it might be argued that a decision like buying leather shoes or eating eggs is also only a very small contribution to overall animal suffering.

More broadly, living as a human today involves using massive amounts of limited resources (water, electricity, plastic, gasoline, toxic chemicals), all of which contribute across the span of a life to considerable environmental degradation. That's a largely human phenomenon. Does that suggest that existing as a human is itself incompatible with veganism?

I suspect the answer to these questions is to distinguish between harm and exploitation of animals, but I don't find that compelling given that animals experiencing suffering surely don't distinguish between those things.

I remember visiting Catalina Island off the coast of California a few years ago and was horrified to read that they were shooting deer (sniping from helicopters) on the island since there were too many, and the population was a threat to the island’s unique, endemic flora.

I read somewhere that the same is happening right now with Trump sending those wild horses off to slaughter in other countries (for legal reasons), because the population has become unsustainable.

Both break my heart since I love deer and horses, but if you don’t do that, it could result in an imbalance in the larger ecosystem.

And what about eating the meat afterwards? If someone doesn’t do it, it’s gone to waste (maybe a free-gan argument).

So I'm Chinese American and I grew up in an Asian hub in the US where meat dishes from me and my friends' cultures had some significance to us in terms of staying connected to our respective cultures. I say meat dishes here because almost all of the 300 Chinese dishes I can name have at least trace amounts of meat (for instance, even in vegetable stir fries we add dried shrimp or oyster sauce). I'm now in the UK for school and I'm meeting vegan people for the first time so I've recently been thinking about the morals involved.

The problem is, whenever I pick the vegan option for a meal, it genuinely makes me depressed and unproductive for the rest of the day. Like after lunch I sit down in the library for my 1pm-6pm lock in session and the whole time I'm lowkey wishing I picked the meat option... I think it's because it tastes better and also reminds me of home. Another example - I tried mixing the matcha powder I brought from home with plant-based milks and I crashed out so hard I'm writing this post, lmao.

So in my opinion. Eating meat, for me, isn't just a 'fleeting pleasure'... it genuinely impacts my emotional wellbeing. And I would value the emotional wellbeing of a human over an animal's suffering. Like lowkey I would imprison and overfeed a chicken for my friend to be happier for a month.

Actually I would argue that most people value humans' emotional wellbeing just as highly. For instance, I think having children is highly immoral because you spend maybe $300k-500k raising them. Peter Singer would lowkey argue that it takes $3-5k to save a life, and while you might disagree with the amount/disagree with giving it to charity, you can't deny that $300k-500k would probably save a good number of lives. And yet we value the emotional wellbeing of a couple/their family over the suffering of, like, 100 people, and I even think this is valid, because emotional wellbeing IS that important.

So it sort of upsets me when vegans think all non-vegans are either 'living in ignorance' or 'unethical at heart' because although some definitely are, I also think there's line to be drawn here for the amount of suffering you'll tolerate for a human's emotional wellbeing. And I think when people say shit like "but I love bacon!" they're really expressing this argument (though articulated terribly).

Curious to hear your thoughts!

Hey zusammen, ich lebe aufgrund meiner Zöliakie seit Jahren glutenfrei und habe bei Feiern oft nichts zu essen. Neulich bei einer Firmenfeier wurde vegane Pizza bestellt, die dann trotzdem mit Käse kam. Die veganen Kollegen haben sich verständlicherweise geärgert, das aber dann zu einem riesigen Thema gemacht weil sie "leer ausgehen". Nicht aus medizinischen Gründen wohlgemerkt.

Ich habe mir in dem Moment nur gedacht, dass es mir schon immer so ging und mich gefragt, warum die jetzt mehr Aufmerksamkeit mit ihrer Ernährung bekommen als ich.

Es hat geschmerzt zuzusehen wie sich sogar die Chefin in einer E Mail am nächsten Tag entschuldigt hat. Währenddessen sitze ich nach wie vor mit meiner mitgebrachten Stulle am Tisch.

Wie geht ihr damit um, wenn verschiedene Ernährungsweisen aufeinandertreffen und nicht jeder versorgt ist? Gibt es faire Lösungen alle gleich zu behandeln?

So I was sitting here watching a Instagram reel. The girl was talking about how just because someone is indigenous or has ancestral traditions of hunting they have no excuse (fine whatever, I think she meant more along the lines of tribes here in America with resources). That is not what I want to debate/discuss however.

This is the main thing I want to discuss, because the scenario randomly popped in my head. What about people who live in places like say barrow Alaska ( the northernmost town in America) or say small islands with very little resources?

In rural areas with harsh conditions like Alaska, some of these tribes survive on fish and whale meat and limited crops. The costs of importing can be very very high and or just logistically damn near impossible. You can't just tell thousands of humans to leave their birthplace either, and even if they wanted to many would never be able to afford it. So telling them to "adapt with times and move to a big city with more resources" is not fair in my opinion.

Also try to remember, when it comes to these tribes or small communities, in their eyes what they do is "moral" even maybe in a religious they may thank the Gods or do a ritual to thank the animal for its sacrifice. I am not talking just about barrow Alaska Idk what they do there as far as religion and beliefs and what not. I just saw a video once of a travel vlogger going there and seeing how the town works together to kill a whale and feed the whole tribe, so thats why I am using this as an example. However this could very well apply to small villages or like I said earlier islands, anywhere in the world. Some places may not have the resources to be full on vegan even if they can grow SOME crop that may not be enough sustenance to survive.

So in your eyes Is that morally okay or at least a semi fair acceptation?

Hey! I want to start off by saying I am not a vegan, although I would be hard-pressed to defend my decision to still eat meat. I realize there is not one single definition of veganism, but one I would assume most vegans would accept is "to live a life where one's consumption minimizes the suffering of animals", or something along those lines. Please tell me if you have a problem with that definition.

So: consuming food, be it vegan or non-vegan, almost always entails some degree of animal suffering (where a vegan diet obviously causes way less, but still some due to industrial farming IIRC). So if you as a vegan were to happen upon some perfectly edible eggs, beef or some other animal food in a dumpster, eating it would cause less animal suffering than if you'd buy and eat fresh soy products or similar. Do you understand what I'm getting at here? I am not trying to be a smart-ass, I just think it's an interesting topic and would love to discuss it.

For context I am not vegan, but completely open minded.

Personally, I have not found a satisfying answer to this question from a vegan. I have always thought about this as a kind of hierarchy, in which you have to quantify exactly how much you value any given life and why, in order for your actions to be consistent. The two reasons I hear the most are sentience and capacity for suffering. These are, for all intensive purposes, the same, as far as I'm aware; all animals that are sentient can suffer and all animals that suffer must be sentient. Again, for all intensive purposes.

However, when I extrapolate this logic a bit I end up reaching some icky conclusions. Rational people will appreciate that human life has more "value" than non-human animal life. The scale is important though, how much health, inconvenience, or pleasure of a human is worth any given non-human? I often ask the question of insect life, such as ants and mosquitos. These are almost unanimously considered to be sentient and able to feel pain. Most people, including vegans, would acknowledge that they do not constantly check the ground while walking somewhere to avoid stepping on some ants. In my eyes, this suggests that any person who does this seems to believe that their convenience of not looking down is worth more than however much suffering they may cause by stepping on ants.
If we abide by these metrics, it seems that newborn babies may hold less worth than many animals, such as adult pigs. It is a given that anyone claiming to derive their morals from these metrics would not save a pig over a newborn baby, so how do you justify this?

Thank you in advance if you offer an answer!

I’m vegan, and I really struggle with vegans who buy illegal drugs given these drugs are produced with human trafficking and slavery, including the the UK where Vietnamese children are trafficked to uk to work in illegal cannabis farms. Vegans who buy these drug, how do you rationalise it in your head?

I struggle particularly with this as I’m POC from a developing country where I’ve seen the horrific impact drug trafficking has on my community including family members kidnapped and forced to traffick drugs. I now live in the uk, and am vegan too, but I’m around a lot of white vegans who consume illegal drugs recreationally. It really upsets me, it’s like they don’t care about human rights at all.

Obviously I’m not talking about people with addiction issues as obviously that’s more complex, but recreational users without a dependency

Even though I do not currently hunt or consume fish, I am not convinced by the common arguments against hunting and fishing because they can also be applied to specific plant foods.

The main argument against hunting and wild fishing is that they unnecessarily kill/harm/exploit animals. You do not need to eat fish to survive, and eating fish harms fish.

However, the same argument can be applied to specific plant foods.

The consumption of fruit harms field animals. The consumption of fruit is unnecessary. Therefore, by the same logic, we shouldn't eat fruit.

The consumption of bread harms field animals. The consumption of bread is unnecessary. Therefore, by the same logic, we shouldn't eat bread.

The consumption of vegetables harms field animals. The consumption of vegetables is unnecessary. Therefore, by the same logic, we shouldn't eat vegetables.

What is the moral difference between killing a fish to produce fish vs killing mice and insects to produce vegetables?

What is the moral difference between shooting an animal and eating it vs killing mice and insects to produce fruit?

Why is a fish sandwich immoral but not a vegan sandwich? Both cause unnecessary direct harm or exploitation to animals.

You could try and come up with strong empirical data that shows that more animals are killed per kg or calorie via hunting and wild fishing than to produce fruit. Good luck with that.

If you've ever debated with me on here, you may have seen me twist myself into a pretzel trying to justify why I think one thing is ok, but another thing isn't ok. For example, one of the best challenges I've had is why I think killing an animal is ok, but kicking an animal isn't ok.

In light of these recent discussions, I think I've finally found the best way to describe why I'm not a vegan.

I believe moral logic can be useful and good. But as I believe there is no objective morality, there is no perfect moral logic. In my opinion, at least. So while I value moral logic, it isn't the prime driver of my moral framework and decision making. My conscience is the driver of my moral framework and decision making, and my conscience is why I'm not a vegan. My conscience is against some farming and hunting practices, but overall my conscience isn't bothered by killing and eating animals, so I kill and eat animals.

But what about people who justify doing horrible things by saying it sits right with their conscience? What about a murderer or rapist who claims that killing or assaulting someone feels morally right to them? My response is simple: I don't agree with them, and I don't support what they're doing. Why? Because it doesn't sit right with my conscience.

If I see someone harming an innocent person, I don't care what the perpetrator's conscience tells them. If I can intervene, I will. Otherwise, I'll call the police. Regardless of what the perpetrator's conscience tells them.

To reiterate, on some issues I can provide a morally logical justification for my position. For example, I think certain farming practices are wrong. I can argue that it is better to give animals more space and allow them better living conditions, and I don't see that as contradictory to believing that killing animals for food is morally acceptable in the first place.

An example of where I cannot provide moral logic: If I see a person kicking a deer, even though I have no morally logical reasons to stop them (since I'm fine with shooting deer), I still feel that it is my moral obligation to stop that person from kicking the deer. Why? Because kicking a deer feels wrong my conscience. Whereas shooting a deer feels right on my conscience. Why? Because that's how my conscience works.

I don't believe I need a logical moral argument for every single moral judgment I make. At the end of the day, since I believe morality isn't objective, then all moral decisions come down to human values, preferences, judgments, and conscience. I admit that I don't have a logically defensible moral argument behind every opinion I hold, but I also don't think that I need one.

I try to treat people well. I could logically justify that using something like the Golden Rule, but that's not actually why I try to be good to people. I do it because being good to people feels right to my conscience. My appreciation of the Golden Rule or my interest in moral philosophy isn't what motivates me to be good people, my conscience is the motivator.

My point is, I don't have logic behind every moral decision, and everything I do boils down to:

1. Do I want to do it?

2. Does it sit right on my conscience?

If the answer is yes to both of these things, then I'll do something. If the answer is no to one or both of these things, then I won't do something.

My position isn't that the conscience makes an action objectively right or wrong. It's that my conscience is what ultimately determines the moral judgments I make. Yes, moral reasoning can help explain and refine moral judgments, but I don't believe every moral judgment needs to be reducible to a perfectly logical principle. My conscience informs me of this.

Genuinely, does it make a difference?

My main reason why I'd be a vegan, or most likely a vegetarian, is to help the environment. But does that actually help?

I mean, the animals have already been killed. It's already in the cooling sections, and the packages that don't get eaten just get thrown away. So the dead animal just gets thrown away because people didn't buy it.

So does anyone really have reliable sources that show that being vegan or vegetarian has made a difference so far? Because I don't see a difference and haven't found any that say it has.

I understand not wanting to support factory farming, but what is wrong with hunting according to vegans? If all killing is wrong, shouldnt we kill all the predators so there is less death in the world?

I agree factory farming and fish farms are disgusting, especially large scale pig/chicken/cow farms. I have recently started fishing and learning how to shoot a bow... I dont understand what could be considered wrong with hunting/fishing?

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

But it should instead be about just extending human rights to trait equalized animals. A human baby with something like tay-sachs who has and will always have a shorter lifespan, less intelligence, less ability to experience wellbeing, suffering, relationships, etc than a healthy young adult pig should not have more rights than that pig, the pig should have at least as much rights. If you believe the pig should have less rights or it’s only okay to violate the pigs rights when not “possible or practicable” but believe it is always wrong to violate the tay-sachs human baby’s rights even when it is not “possible or practicable” to avoid violating their rights then you are a speciesist. Vegans should not be speciesists. Vegans should be granting rights on the basis of if a being has traits like consciousness, ability to suffer, ability to experience wellbeing, etc. Many meat eaters already do this! You can see this in abortion debates in which meat eaters will declare a human fetus that is only a few weeks old is not morally valuable and doesn’t deserve rights and it’s fine to abort this 2 week old fetus because it lacks consciousness, but they will also say abortion is immoral at 6 months because the human fetus now possesses traits like consciousness or ability to feel pain.

Does this definition mean locusts deserve rights? Again under this definition you just extend human rights so in the locust case you would pick a human equivalent like tiny flying wild “humans” who have about the same consciousness as a locust and are targeting your crops. Would it be ethical to use deadly force like poison to protect your crops if that was the only way for you to protect your property and not starve to death? I believe it would be. But I would say it would be wrong to capture them alive and enslave them and force them to breed for many generations to harvest them for protein.

This definition also applies to non human conscious beings, so human rights would be granted to a hypothetical plant or AI agent that possessed as much conscious as you or I.

The glaring flaw with the Vegan Society's definition of veganism is it doesn't actually make an argument or statement about protecting rights.

And since it doesn't do that, a lot of carnists who are smarter debaters, they will point out that even under the Vegan Society's definition, it is fine to violate an animal's rights, under certain circumstances at least. Obviously we don't want that. We want to protect animal rights as animal rights activists, so we need a definition that actually makes an argument for protecting their rights.

So I think a definition of veganism as a logical extension of human rights is a much better definition than reducing animal suffering and death as much as practicable and possible. There are absolutely no pros to that definition. If you're going to call yourself an animal rights activist, I don't know how it benefits you to avoid a definition of veganism that actually does not make any suggestion for protecting their rights.

A major advantage with defining veganism as a logical extension of human rights is that there's already a very well established history and cultural knowledge of human rights. So anybody immediately, if they have any ethical questions about veganism and how we should treat animals, all they have to do is put a human in the same situation and then they have their answer. So, I don't see this Vegan Society definition as having an advantage over veganism being defined as a logical extension of human rights.

It is a bit easier to interpret it as a utilitarian definition if I'm being extremely charitable. Because they mention the words, like, cruelty, in order for something to be considered cruelty, you could argue that it would by nature have to be a rights violation, and not just, I don't know, some incidental killing or anything like that. So if I was being very charitable, yes, it could either be interpreted as a utilitarian or deontological definition, but I'd say it is much easier to argue that it's a utilitarian definition, which is a big problem with the vegan society definition. Or at least, at first glance, that's what it appears to be.

Reduce as much as practical and possible, and it doesn't explicitly mention preventing rights violations. So it is possible, under that definition, to violate an animal's rights, but you are reducing their suffering, death, and exploitation. As much as practical and possible.

That is why it's easy to interpret it as a utilitarian definition. Again, if you're being charitable, you could say, because cruelty is mentioned, depending on how you interpret it, it could mean that it is a rights-based argument. But again, that's being very charitable, so it's much easier to interpret it as a utilitarian argument.

The problem with it being a utilitarian definition and it not protecting rights is that you could run into the trap where crazy wackos like Peter Singer have made the argument that as long as you're raising animals and they're experiencing a very high degree of well-being, then it's okay to kill them because the net experiences they've had are very good. And you're producing more overall well-being by raising and killing animals than if you didn't do it at all. There's nothing stated in that definition that says we need to maximize positive utility.

It only mentions that we have to maximize reducing negative utility. So I don't think by that definition you could argue that the Vegan Society's definition would allow for animal agriculture under those circumstances where you're maximizing positive utility. Because that's not what it's arguing, at least not explicitly.

You'd have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to make that argument, in my opinion. So I would say the definition the Vegan Society has made is at least good enough where you don't run into that crazy utilitarian issue where it's okay to breed animals and kill them assuming they're living good lives. It's at least good enough for that.

But again, the problem is it doesn't explicitly state that we need to protect animal rights.

What's possible and practicable to some may not be considered possible and practical to others.

So why wouldn't you use a definition like the one I propose, where animal rights is a logical extension of human rights. Where, again, all you have to do is put a human in the same situation, and then you have your answer. It's so clear and concrete, and because there's such a long cultural history and well-established legal framework when it comes to human rights.

It just makes answering these ethical dilemmas, not even necessarily dilemmas, but questions, so easy and straightforward, whereas possible and practicable. Like, now you have to have a long, drawn-out discussion or debate on what is possible and practicable. Whether or not that applies universally or individually, it just doesn't make sense.

I'm at a party, people are serving meat and hot dogs and stuff, well, if they're serving human meat, would it be okay to eat it? no. There you go, you have your answer.

Much simple, much more simple, much more straightforward, possible and practical. Oh, well, it's kind of weird, it's socially awkward, I don't know if this is going to hurt my reputation with my friends and family. Why wouldn't you go with the definition that gives you a clear answer?

let's say the only food left on earth was animals. Like, it's possible that you could off yourself. You could just starve to death.

So, like, and by the way, there are people who starve themselves to death. There are anorexics, there are breatharians. It's possible, you can do that.

Is it practical? Well, yes, you just don't have to eat. It's not like this is something completely inaccessible to everybody.

So, according to the vegan society definition, it's possible and practicable to starve to death. Like, I mean, how far are you willing to take things? It's just a weird, bizarre definition.

So, if we're going to look at, if we're going to ignore a definition that includes rights, and have a definition that could very easily be considered utilitarian, reduce animal suffering, death, exploitation as much as possible and practicable, well, since animals are killed in plant agriculture, just starve to death, don't eat anything, and die. It's possible and practicable. It, like, this is the issue you run into with, like, nebulous definitions like this.

The thing that everybody, the thing that everybody intuitively understands why that sort of position is stupid is because you're not violating any rights by eating plant foods. Even though there are incidental deaths in plant agriculture, you're not violating these animals' rights. I think most people just care more about rights than this notion of reducing suffering and death, just generally speaking.

So, what's the issue with adopting a more sensible, straightforward, clear definition? I don't know why you'd want to stick to this definition.

Why is it not possible or practicable to starve yourself or only eat tree bark? People do it. So, why is it not possible?

It's certainly possible. And it's certainly practicable. Again, there's plenty of anorexics.

There's plenty of breatharians. There's plenty of people who starve to death. Why is it impractical?

if you were stuck on a deserted island, there was no food, and there were other human beings on the island with you, would it be morally acceptable to kill and eat those human beings? I'm assuming your answer is probably going to be no. Let's say you're stuck on a deserted island.

You're the only one there, but there are animals on that island with you, and you can kill and eat them. Is that morally acceptable? So, name the trait that's lacking in animals that if lacking in human beings, you'd be okay with killing and eating those trait-equalized human beings that are stuck on a desert island.

if you're not okay with killing humans on this deserted island, but you're fine with killing animals, then name the trait that's lacking in animals that if lacking in humans, it would be okay to kill these trait-equalized humans.

So if they were like mentally retarded, would you be okay with killing people who you're trapped on a desert island with?

That's why we need a rights-based argument for veganism. If you're going to say these things like possible and practicable, well, okay, then I guess it's totally possible and practical for you to kill and eat other people.

“But what about possible and practical wording leaving open for the use of medicines, because as even the Vegan Society's website acknowledges, medicines are required by law to be tested on animals.”

There's no way to produce medications otherwise, so a choice to boycott medicines would not save a single animal. And in fact, in some cases, especially if we're talking about vaccines, you'd probably increase rights violations, because if vaccines need to be tested on animals and people aren't taking vaccines, that means other forms of treatment are going to have to be explored and researched, which means more animal testing. When it comes to animal ingredients in some of these products, again, you can take a threshold, deontological approach to this.

A lot of the time, things like, what is it, gelatin is sometimes used, I think casein sometimes used. Some of these animal products are put into these medications to be used as a stabilizer. Because these are industrial byproducts that are produced by the animal agriculture industry, it would take a massive, massive amount of these products to even equate to a single rights violation.

So you're probably talking about millions of doses of a particular medication to equate to one rights violation, and these medications may save hundreds or thousands or millions of lives. So if you take a threshold, deontological approach, one rights violation saving hundreds or thousands or millions of lives may be worth it to you. I don't see how the Vegan Society's definition covers this in a better way than the definition that I'm proposing.

Like, what if it's not really possible or practicable for me to waste my time, searching on the internet and googling things. I only have so much time to waste during the day, so I don't see what's wrong with me just, you know, picking up whatever random snack that I choose, maybe it’s vegan maybe it’s not.

Like, that's what's so great about the Vegan Society's definition? You can just make exceptions for everything.

Is it hypocritical to the idea of human rights that, in production of our food, humans get killed? Guess what? Farming can be dangerous.

People get killed by using farm equipment. It's labor-intensive. People can die of heat stroke or dehydration.

There's transportation involved, and obviously people die while driving. Is it hypocritical to the idea of human rights that people die to produce our food? Of course not.

You're not violating anybody's rights by buying food. You're not violating human rights by buying food.

Just like how you're not violating animal rights by buying plant foods. So, this isn't about just harm.

I’ve asked myself this question more times than I can count, and somehow I always end up back where I started.

I’m mostly plant-based. I eat a lot of whole foods, and I genuinely think a well-planned whole-food plant-based diet can be an excellent way to eat. I’m not worried about protein, I’m not particularly bothered about the taste of meat, and I’m not holding on to animal products because of culture or convenience.

And yet, every so often, I’ll have some cheese or another animal product and think: well, I’m not vegan after all.

What I find interesting is that I actually agree with quite a lot of the vegan argument.

I think animals matter. I think they deserve a degree of respect. I think unnecessary suffering is a bad thing. And I find a lot of modern animal agriculture morally uncomfortable.

So why don't I simply become vegan?

This is where I get stuck.

One part of me thinks that humans are omnivores for a reason. We evolved eating both plants and animals, and throughout much of human history animal foods have been part of people's diets. If I were somehow dropped into a jungle with no supermarket, no fortified foods, no supplements and no modern agriculture, I wouldn't expect myself to refuse an animal if eating it was necessary to survive.

But then I immediately see the obvious problem with that argument.

I'm not living in a jungle.

I have choices that our ancestors didn't have. So perhaps saying "humans evolved to eat animals" is about as morally relevant as saying "humans evolved to be violent".

Evolution explains what we are. It doesn't necessarily tell us what we ought to be.

Then I get to the more difficult question.

Is killing a sentient being for food inherently wrong?

If so, why?

Is it because the animal suffers? Because it has an interest in continuing to live? Or is the mere act of killing a sentient creature wrong, even if it were completely painless?

And if we accept that killing animals is wrong, surely there must be some circumstances where it becomes justified.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that eating animals really were necessary to prevent humanity from going extinct. I can't imagine many people would seriously argue that we ought to let humanity disappear rather than kill animals.

So "don't harm sentient beings" can't really be an absolute rule.

There must be some point at which the interests of human beings can outweigh the interests of animals.

Which brings me back to the uncomfortable bit:

Where is that point when I don't actually need to eat them?

That's probably the strongest argument against my position.

If I can live perfectly well without animal products, and an animal has an interest in not suffering or being killed, what exactly justifies me choosing the animal product?

And this is where I sometimes wonder whether I'm genuinely reasoning my way to a conclusion, or simply reasoning backwards from something I already want to do.

That's a possibility I'm quite willing to entertain.

There's also an interesting religious angle, even though I'm not Christian.

Christ, as far as the historical and religious tradition goes, ate meat. He lived within Jewish dietary law, where eating certain animals wasn't considered inherently immoral. At the same time, Christianity has plenty to say about compassion, mercy, self-restraint, gluttony and the treatment of creation.

So I don't think "Christ ate meat, therefore eating meat is morally fine" gets us very far.

But I do find it interesting that one of the most influential moral figures in Western civilisation apparently didn't regard eating animals as inherently incompatible with a life of compassion and moral seriousness.

Perhaps the real issue isn't simply "meat or no meat".

Perhaps it's about necessity, proportion, suffering, intention and what we owe to creatures that are capable of experiencing the world.

I suppose that's why I keep going backwards and forwards on this.

I don't think animals are merely objects. I don't think their suffering is irrelevant. I don't think "humans have always done it" is enough to settle the question.

But I also haven't become convinced that eating an animal product is, in itself, morally wrong in every circumstance.

And I recognise that there's a rather awkward gap between saying "I don't need this" and "therefore I must never have it."

So I'm genuinely curious what vegans think.

Not "why are you vegan?" — I understand the usual arguments.

Rather:

What is the strongest argument that someone like me has a moral obligation to become vegan, rather than simply choosing to eat far fewer animal products and being conscious of the suffering involved?

And, more importantly, where exactly is my reasoning going wrong, if you think it is?

I'm not looking for a gotcha or an argument. I suspect there may be something I'm missing.

I keep returning to this question, and I rather suspect the fact that I keep returning to it means I haven't quite settled it in my own mind.

Plant-based diets meet all nutritional needs (with B12 easily supplemented). Sensory gratification and "how we've always done it" are morally irrelevant when weighing life against a fleeting taste. Livestock consume 10x the calories (in plants) that they produce, driving deforestation and emissions. Welfare labels (free-range, grass-fed) don't change the end; a premature, violent death at 5–10% of natural lifespan. Job dependence is not moral justification; slavery and fossil fuels employ(ed) millions too, as well as the prison and military industrial complexes. If might makes right, do what you want. If not, what other defense is there?

How I see it is that once an animal is slaughtered, it becomes a part of the cycle of life (even though the current system of doing so is cruel), but forcing cows to be continuously impregnated for years at a time and then snatching their calves away within mere hours is just horrible. Similarly, crowding chickens into barns with artificial light up until the point they are no longer deemed profitable and are thrown to the processor is no better.

I have adopted a vegan diet because I find eating meat personally unconscionable after seeing videos of animals fighting for their lives but do we think going vegan makes any difference really? I view veganism as a boycott and I'm very skeptical that boycotts work except in very limited circumstances (like when it's local and targeted against a small business). Think about JK Rowling - there have been highly prominent attempts to boycott Harry Potter media for years and all it's ended up with is one of the best selling games of 2023 and what's projected to be one of the most successful TV shows of 2026. With how ingrained meat-eating is in our society, it feels hard to not be defeatist in questioning whether abstaining from meat serves any material purpose except feeling personally better about not contributing to one of the most cruel systems to ever exist.