Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?
Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.
Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.
For the sake of argument I think you could say that you’re depriving a scavenger of a meal. I don’t know if that’s how veganism is usually framed.
Won’t someone think of the bacteria??
…and crows and vultures and eagles and bears and assorted rodents and foxes and beetles and many, many more. There is actually a rather robust eco system out there, you know. And when you gut part of it, you are just asking for trouble.
shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it, since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
What the fuck are you talking about? The corpse is still made up of animal parts. For the record I’m a vegetarian because I hate animals and I think they’re gross.
I’m agitated by this post not because of whatever morality question you’re trying to pull, but for linguistics sake.
Definition of Vegan from Merriam - Webster:
a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals
also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)
People like you are the reason why the word “literally” doesn’t mean “literally” anymore and we don’t have a replacement.
lexicons don’t tell you what a word should mean. they just record known uses
Sounds like someone woke up not just on the wrong side of the bed, but off of it. Take six chill pills, bro. 😂
I’m referring to veganism the moral philosophy, not the deit.
That’s not the question you asked
shouldn’t it be considered vegan
The answer is no, because the definition of the word. I’m sick of “vibe” people. Words have meanings.
Buddy thinks the dictionary contains all the information he ever needs to know 😂
Dude asks questions to people without doing the minimal effort of a Google search.
Maybe you forgot what community this is, chief.
…
Ahhh fuck you’re right. I thought this was regular Ask Lemmy.
Well I’m a complete jackass, but my point remains.
why the word “literally” doesn’t mean “literally” anymore and we literally don’t have a replacement word.
Literally still means literally, it just ironically also means figuratively now too.
But it’s literally always meant literally.
Literally used to mean literally. It still does. It just used to a well.
I’ve wondered about this myself since like age 7, when our otherwise perfectly healthy horse Sissy got struck by lightning while standing under a pine tree out in the field in a storm. 😢
Living out in deer hunting country, they could have given the neighbors a shout and basically be like hey the meat’s fresh, y’all come help cut it up and stock like 10-20 freezers for free…
🤷
You probably don’t want to eat horse meat these days due to the drugs that are often given to horses, (mostly wormers). They tend to not flush out of the horses system no matter how long you wait.
Hi, ive been vegan for a bit over 10 years. I don’t think animal parts are for us to use at all. I’m not really sure why you’d harvest animals at all, I don’t think normalizing the commodification of others’ bodies is a good thing to be doing. If you really can’t live without animal parts, that’s probably the least harmful way of acquiring them. I wouldn’t recommend eating anyone you find lying on the ground though, that sounds like a good way to contract horrible diseases.
Veganism is about doing the most that is possible and practicable. We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that. Similarly, driving a car for many people is a necessity to be able to access goods and services, and its not at all practicable to avoid driving for them.
Ultimately, veganism is a moral stance about reducing harm to others as much as you can. It’s not a competition, so don’t feel like you have to be perfect at it to do good.
Thank you for this perspective!
Back in the way way way way way way way day. Human used animal fur for warmth, and the meat to eat.
We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that.
There’s this Hindu sect whose adherents wear veils, sweep the floor before them, and/or tread very slowly and carefully to avoid injuring, killing or eating any small insects. As you said, it’s about doing as much as you can, but if it were a competition they’d win for sure.
I think you mean Jainism? It isn’t Hindu.
They also have a very strict vegetarian diet, they won’t even eat root vegetables so burrowing insects aren’t disturbed
I mean defining new religion is always tricky, Hinduism is such a large collection of beliefs, if you go too wide Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism would unfold into Hinduism and if you go too narrow Hinduism is at best group of 12-13 separate religion.
The deeper you look the more confusing it is, while Jain texts acknowledge certain “Hindu” deities like Indra, other parts of universe building are entirely different, and if they are different where did Indra come from?
Anyway I like the distinction of dharmic religions and then defining sects such as Jain, Vaishnav, shaiva, Buddhism etc etc. They all have the concept of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. So they are all kind of interoperable in terms of lifestyle. There are sects of Hinduism that are more different than mainstream to the point it’d be hard to call them Hindu, but they self identify as Hindu, while there are sects of buddishm that are so similar to Hinduism, it’s unclear why they consider themselves a separate religion. I think at the end the distinctions between dharmic religion are always because of some geopolitical power game.
Yeah but if you ask a jain they’d say they’re not Hindu. So take it for it means.
I would argue Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism are as distinct as Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Which are the sects of Buddhism that are so similar to Hinduism? (Curiosity, not attack - i studied Buddhism in depth for my degree, but that was 20 years ago)
I would argue that Buddhism is as distinct from Hinduism as an agnostic is from the abrahamic faiths.
If you really look at Buddhism, it’s a critique of Hindu concepts such as Atman.
Of course it incorporates a lot of those concepts, because the Buddha was communicating his critique to folks who used those concepts.
For example, the four brahmavajara’s are framed in a Hindu understanding of the godhead. That doesn’t mean the Buddha believed in Brahma beyond it’s conceptualization by Hindus.
He was merely using it as a teaching device to point out the importance of the four immeasurable minds to a Brahmin who asked him what the mind of God is like.
I would argue that Buddhism is as distinct from Hinduism as an agnostic is from the abrahamic faiths.
This is a great take. Buddhism is more a philosophy of a worldview than a religious worldview.
Buddhism taking on concepts of other religions, even deities, is upaya (skilful means). Its a way draw as many people as possible out of suffering as possible. I seem to remember that’s the whole idea of mahayana Buddhism: getting as many people as possible at least partway towards enlightenment is better than only a few all the way.
Mahayana also reframes the goal toward practicing compassion in the moment and other pro social concepts (no self), rather than enlightenment of the individual.
A Western Zen teacher was asked by a student why the Bodhisattva vows are unattainable. Suffering is endless, living beings are innumerable. But we vow to end all suffering and lead all beings to enlightenment.
The Zen teacher replied, essentially, they’re silly because being helpful is the goal.
Mayahana also helped a lot with reification that snuck in during the five hundred years after the Buddha’s death. The abhidharma for example reduces the mental factors into individual components or atoms and treats them as though they have an essence or self.
Indian Buddhist philosophers such as Nagarjuna, pointed out that even these are interdependent. Jewels in Indra’s net.
For context, I’ve been studying and practicing off and on for around a decade. Took my precepts in the Plum Village Zen tradition under Thich Nhat Hanh’s lineage, and also study and practice under the guidance of a Theravada monk and scholor named Bhikkhu Analayo.
All concepts are upaya. Some are more skillful than others, such as the Dharma taught by the Buddha. But they’re signs on a map, rather than a dogma to hold onto.
Of course, individual teachers and practitioners are human, and they may see things differently than I do. But ultimately I view Buddhism as a critique of concepts, that points at the interdependent (empty) and impermanent nature of things. And most world religions seem to lean much more heavily on dogma.
But again individual practitioners in other religions may be more enlightened. I know Thich Naht Hanh was friends with a lot of Christians and studied theology in the West as a young man. Some of his closest friends included monastics like Thomas Merton. And some activists such as Daniel Berrigan and Dr King. Hanh believed that the heart of Christ and the heart of the Buddha were pointing at the same ultimate ground.
And I could also argue that Jesus was quite critical of Judaism. Though his followers have largely used him for personal and political gain in the 2000 years since his death.
Linked below is a Dharma talk were a Plum Village nun discusses the appropriation of spirituality for the sake of control of the masses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7NL8mOsEs
Anyway, I’ve read a lot and I’ve studied a lot. I find wisdom in both Theravada and Mahayana. Though I do find the Tibetan tradition problematic, and don’t generally spend much time with their teachings anymore. Though I am drawn to the esoteric teachings and have cribbed quite a bit from the book of the dead, I find Plum Village speaks more to my heart. And without that, the dharma is hard to hear.
I also like systems science by the way. Very similar critique of reification. Or ‘selfing’.
Not for us to use? Do you mean you don’t think we should or is that something that comes from somewhere “above” (religion, philosophy, something like that)
I don’t think we should, other’s bodies aren’t ours. Just a deeply held moral belief.
That’s understandable
i saw a really interesting video about biking jackets and the design of them, the conclusion is that molecularly leather is the safest material for abrasion and there’s not really any synthetic replacement that comes close.
What does your perspective (in regard to veganism) have on this subject?
https://youtu.be/xwuRUcAGIEU
Btw this channel is REALLY entertaining and well written, I’d recommend watching this channel if you get bored sometimeI’d take the risk with synthetic materials, personally. I don’t think any amount of danger I put myself in would justify killing someone else for their skin. I have a synthetic jacket with elbow and shoulder reinforcement for when I ride, and that’s good enough for me.
I’ll definitely check out the video later when I have more downtime though.
For the western world motorbikes are largely a luxury. Don’t do the luxury thing AND don’t wear a dead animal seems like a reasonable position to take.
I don’t think you understand. Leather jackets are the best for safety, it’s not just a fashion choice
I don’t think you understand.
Not doing the activity that requires protective clothing is safer than doing the activity with protective clothing.
For westerners motorcycle riding and leather jackets are luxuries so it seems the vegan solution would be to not ride and not buy leather.
For the eastern world motorbikes and mopeds is all everyone has. Far from luxury
Thank you for your well rounded and ernest perspective. That final sentence really gave me pause. And it’s nice to find a corner of the internet where vegans aren’t vilified immediately for existing
If you don’t make a moral distinction between humans and other animals, it seems difficult to justify scavenging with any logic that couldn’t also be used to justify grave robbing, cannibalism, or even necrophilia.
If you don’t make any sort of moral distinction between humans and animals then sex might become on interesting topic.
This is strawman reasoning. No vegan I’ve ever met belives that there’s no moral distinction between human and non human animals. They believe that non human and have moral worth, and that moral worth is higher than 15 minutes of taste pleasure or shoes, etc.
The basic logic flows like this:
- Non human animals are capable of subjective experiences, which includes the ability to suffer.
- Exploitation of or killing of animals causes suffering.
- It isn’t essential, under normal circumstances in modern society, to cause that suffering for our survival.
- It isn’t morally permissible to cause unnecessary suffering.
Why don’t you eat humans if they’ve already died?
Because I’m not allowed in the morgue anymore.
You made me literally laugh out loud. Thank you
Because of the karma loss 🙄
prion disease lol
I would totally try it if it was legally allowed and there wasn’t a risk of diesease from eating human flesh. 🤷♂️
And, if in a situation like the Donner Party: That’s generally what happens. They don’t kill someone just to eat 'em.
i hear children taste the best. maybe we should adopt a system of indefinitely milking mothers while eating their children like is done with cows. Double Bonus. Tastiest meat plus milk.
They have to die on their own tho. And I’m not sure it would be safe to eat unvaccinated children who died of preventable illnesses.
Veganism isn’t a hivemind. We’re all individuals that came to similar conclusions. And we will have different opinions on the details.
Some folks will say consuming those that died naturally is a-ok. Others will argue that it incentivizes creating conditions under which animals die “naturally” to harvest them.
Personally, I’m part of the group that is probably the largest by a long shot, whose opinion is: Why are we even thinking about that?The vast majority of vegans find corpses gross, much like anything you might derive from corpses.
It also seriously does not happen often, that animals drop dead in front of you. And there’s nothing on an animal’s body that you can’t find a different alternative for. So, it really just is not a relevant question in our lives…How about using birds’ discarded feathers for decorations? Discarded seashells? Pearls from clams that died naturally?
Well, I hope you are happy with the answers you already got, because my answer is that I personally don’t care to keep these items, so I don’t have much of an opinion on it. 😎
That’s kind of the point I was trying to make up there, that I don’t have to be the arbiter of all morals, just my own morals…
But if you want to keep such trinkets and you feel like you’ve informed yourself enough to know that no harm is done to these animals, and that makes you decide that it is moral, I will gladly accept your decision.
If I learn that it does harm in some way, I would let you know, though. Not to attack you, but because I would assume that you want to do no evil. And that you don’t subscribe to thehorseshitbelief that your own ignorance of evil makes it moral.I feel like I really need to drive home that veganism is when you care, but you’re also lazy. I don’t want to have to inform myself about every supply chain for my food and every possible moral effect that my actions might have. So, I just nope the fuck out of a large chunk of that by not dealing with animal-sourced products.
Like, yeah, if a bird drops a feather in front of you, the supply chain is quite obvious and I would hope you don’t set off a trend of enough people wanting feathers in their homes for there to emerge an industry.
So, it’s almost certainly fine. But if I myself don’t actually want a feather, you can bet your ass that I will gladly stop thinking right then and there.
If these were not just random examples and rather genuine questions, then I would try to help you reason through it, but ultimately the decision is yours…
They’re not just random examples for some people though. For some indigenous peoples these items are a foundational part of their cultural practices.
Then those indigenous people need to figure out their morals. Chances are, they are embedded in a context where this is a lot easier, because they don’t have factory farming. They are part of the food network and take only as much as nature can recover.
You want me to be the arbiter of all morals? Well, there’s my take. Indigenous people hunting are not the problem. Other parts of the hivemind might have a different view on that, though, and I’m not gonna apologize for their take.
I find corspes yuck because it feels the same as cannibalism to me. I have no issues with touching human hair or fingernails, but I wouldn’t eat your arm, spleen or eye. Does this help?
Speaking for every single vegan on the whole world: If you fancy that stuff, go for it. We won’t deny you our universal seal of approval for that.
It’s true, I can’t deny that vegans approve of protecting the universe’s seals.
I had a teacher in high school ask me to bring him a deer if I ever hit one on my way to school.
I had a teacher in high school do the same thing. He’d also note the sides of the road on the way to school so he could find fresh roadkill on the way home.
Made some great venison jerky.
They call themselves freegans
I would think driving a car is not vegan because it’s fueled by dead dinosaurs.
Oil is not from dinos.
It was a lame attempt at humor since it’s called fossil fuel… I know oil primarily came from ancient algae and plankton that died and sank to the ocean floor.
Vegan just means causing as little animal suffering as possible. Us existing in a capitalist society causes suffering for animals. But where it is possible to avoid it, it should be avoided is what vegans want. Like if a vegan drives a car and a squirrel runs in front of the car the person does not suddenly stop being vegan
What if that person had no remorse for the squirrel?
Cars and roads cause a lot of suffering for animals in general
Humans especially. I wouldn’t have to go to work if the roads all vanished
You mean it’s not Scott Pilgrim rules?
I’m not vegan myself but I had asked a similar enough question to a vegan friend a while ago and liked his answer:
He said for him it’s 2 parts, 1 is that while the animal that died may not have been harmed by humans, the ecosystem that relies on scavenging carcasses will be hurt if humans effectively start removing their entire food source (same way we have driven species to extinction by hunting).
The 2nd part is that with humans everything with even the tiniest loop hole will get abused… Imagine that we say this is okay. Today it may be the odd naturally deceased animal, in a month it’ll start including animals “killed accidentally”, in a year it’ll be someone farming animals with some weird way of culling them so they can claim it’s still natural causes by some twisted logic… at the end of it we’d just not be able to trust any of it anyway so it’s easier to not even entertain the thought - the energy to figure it all out would be better spent on improving alternatives.
Slippery slope argument. Much more valid today then you would think. Its my primary go to to argue against deportation of immigrants for whatever reason.
From a materialist point of view, I can’t see any harm in harvesting the hide of an already dead animal. However, wearing a real fur coat and calling yourself a vegan is never going to be an easy thing to explain lmao
I think it would depend who you ask. I consider myself vegan and would have no major issue with someone using roadkill for parts. I mean, I would find it disgusting and could never myself, but if they want to and still call themselves vegan, I see no problem with it as the harm has already been done to the animal. Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest - what’s dead is dead.
Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest
Umm… Wut? Why are you being a bone harvester, what do you need them for??
Lots of people like to use things like antlers or skulls as decorations
Witchcraft
Whatever I want.
If you die in the woods I will find you.
Bone stuff, why are you asking so many questions?
Found RFK, Jr’s Lemmy account
