Ein Influenzer hat angefangen davon zu erzählen was mit den Tieren so angestellt wird. Bisschen selber nachgelesen und das hat gereicht.
Weißt du noch, wer das war?
Klar, Dekarldent (auf Twitch)
Habs Gefühl der hat so einige bekehrt. Mich hat er auch zum Umdenken gebracht dass ich mittlerweile zumindest vegetarisch lebe.
Ich fand's sehr interessant als er von seiner Studie erzählt hat, dass er seine Hunde vegan, aber mit vollem Nährstoffhaushalt ernährt. Leider hab ich von seiner fertigen Arbeit am Ende nichts mehr gehört.
Es ist nicht anständig, Tiere zu töten, nur weil sie gut schmecken.
Diesen Satz hab ich mal irgendwo gelesen. Und ich fand es so simpel, so richtig, dass ich eine Weile darüber nachgedacht und dann schnell verstanden habe, dass es in meiner moralischen Weltvorstellung - wenn ich ihr denn konsequent folge - einfach keinen Platz für unnötiges Tierleid gibt. Ich würde Fleisch essen, wenn ich auf einer einsamen Insel strande und das die einzige Nahrungsquelle ist. Aber in unserer Gesellschaft gibts aus meiner Sicht keine Rechtfertigung dafür, sobald man einmal darüber nachgedacht hat.
If depends on where you place your morals.
Human morals are antropocentric. The only reason we see "life" as something good is because we are descendants of people who saw "life" as someting good, it's in our genes, our instinct of survival. Our ancestors would have killed themselves without that instinctive attachment to life, so we wouldn't have been born in the first place. It's selection bias... natural selection.
The Earth, and the Universe in general, does not care about life (human or otherwise), or about suffering, or about apetite. The planets will continue to be there long after we are extinct. We (including the animals around us) and our feelings have zero "importance" in reality. There's no real importance scale but the one we make.
Humans categorize things in "importance" based on how they serve the human race. Even something like global warming, is important in so far as it puts humanity lives at risk, no other reason. It's not about "saving Earth" or the animals, it's about saving ourselves. We are the "important" ones, in our own view. If you don't agree with this then... why not advocate for a safe way to end ourselves without suffering? wouldn't the Earth be "better" without humanity? if the goal was really about minimizing suffering, that might be a good approach wouldn't it?
Note that I'm NOT advocating for suicide... but trying to show the argument is not that good.
I can understand vegans that do it for the future of the Earth (and humanity) and to fight our own autodestructive behavior. And I totally support that, I think it makes complete sense and it's what got me interested in this as well. But I don't understand those who first and foremost put the focus on the animal suffering. I feel that's more of an appeal to empathy (another evolutionary trait) and it's driven by emotion/instincts rather than logic/reason. The argument being made this way is more of an emotional blackmailing trying to make our reptile brain feel bad, not about giving an actual logical argument.
wouldn’t the Earth be “better” without humanity? if the goal was really about minimizing suffering, that might be a good approach wouldn’t it?
Why stop there, we could probably eradicate life on earth completely, ending all suffering?
Jokes aside, you're using the word argument and claim it's not reasonable, but I fail to see "the vegan argument" in your comment, whatever this is. The goal to reduce (needless) suffering of animals is merely a stance.
Veganism is a compromise, nothing more, nothing less. Vegans still have a will to live like most sentient beings, and to a degree that always includes weighing opposing interests. To give an example, hardly any vegan will argue that we shouldn't use non-vegan medicine if there's no plant-based alternative.
The question is where to draw the line. One could come to the conclusion that some suffering of animals is needless, e.g. if the only purpose is to give one a cheap, delicious meal.
If you're really interested in learning about logical arguments in favor of reducing animal suffering, there's a bunch of philosophers who worked on that, Peter Singer comes to mind.
I do wonder, though, why do you think it's reasonable to put importance on humanity or its future at all? Might as well just put importance on oneself, no?
Veganism is a compromise, nothing more, nothing less.
Sure, compromises that "depend on where you place your morals".
The meme here is trying to superficially tackle a topic that's complex, projecting to the animal by "talking" to it with the intent of triggering empathy and causing a natural emotional reaction.
I do wonder, though, why do you think it’s reasonable to put importance on humanity or its future at all? Might as well just put importance on oneself, no?
Exactly.
I do believe that the only reason we give importance to "humanity" is because it happens to be what's interesting for our own importance on "oneselves" as individuals.
Do you think that's unreasonable?
I do genuinely love other people, and I do so for egotistic reasons. Because they mean a lot TO ME. My family and friends are a huge part of MY world, of what I am. They can give me strength when I need it. A strong group makes ME strong, so I wanna give them strength when they need it too. Making them happy ends up making ME happy. And that applies (to a lesser/more abstract extent) to the community around me. It's in MY interest to have the most welcoming and charitable society. So I try to be charitable to help make it a charitable society since that is what's of interest to ME.
We have evolved as "pack" animals like that for a reason. If someone tells me they are freely acting in detriment to their own interest/satisfaction, then I would not trust that person... either they are lying to me or they are lying to themselves and they actually get some form of personal satisfaction/benefit from those actions.
If people did not deeply place importance on themselves first, then that would lead to sacrificing themselves for a perceived notion they have of what might be of interest to others... that's essentially what hardcore Christians preach (even if they don't practice it): to endure suffering for the sake of others. Imho, if everyone did that, then everyone would have to endure suffering... and because it's impossible to really be 100% sure of what others really need (we are not mind readers) not only is it inefficient to base your life in what you think others need, but it might even be counterproductive, it might even lead to a never ending cycle of guilt. And even the Christians had to think of a reward in the "afterlife" in order to sound convincing at all... just so that they can actually try and convince their own animal brains that the sacrifice isn't against their own benefit...
I fail to see “the vegan argument” in your comment, whatever this is.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
If you are asking me: "when do you think veganism makes a good case?" then I would say: when it makes the point that if we don't switch our diet we would end up destroying ourselves, since our current diet does not seem to be sustainable long term for our environment.
Oh, I'll have to admit, for some reason I didn't consider the meme when interpreting your comment, thought you were just answering to the title of the post.
Personally, I think that a charitable society should strive towards being compassionate to all sentient beings. It's understandable and even necessary to our survival that we put ourselves first, but we're at a point where we could easily diminish a huge chunk of pain and suffering from animals just with the mild inconvenience of changing our eating habits. That's one of the better points the meme makes, the drawback isn't some unacceptable sacrifice.
If you are asking me: “when do you think veganism makes a good case?” then I would say: when it makes the point that if we don’t switch our diet we would end up destroying ourselves, since our current diet does not seem to be sustainable long term for our environment.
That's a great argument to go plant-based, but veganism, by definition, is about reducing animal exploitation "as far as possible and practicable" (according to the vegan society who invented the term). Note that there's leeway for compromise.
Spotted the nihilist.
From experience, I find it hard to argue with nihilists since nothing really has value for them. Although, I have yet to meet a pure nihilist (or amoralist). Fully functioning nihilsts and amoralists don't exist. So usually it shows that they are not as nihilistic as it first seems. And I suspect you will be no exception.
Technically, and from a natural point of view, you are correct. Suffering is an evolutionary trait. But it has no bigger universal meaning or consequences other than being a stimulus which aids organisms in survival.
You argue (or rather try to show a weakness of an argument) that if all of humanity were commiting suicide, this would be beneficial for other forms of life on this planet. (Or "most" humans, to be technically adequate, since I can imagine that humans are also to some degree important parts of functioning ecosystems.) This seems logical if the only premise is environmental protection and preservation. It's obvious that this is not the only premise which plays a role here. Vegans (and a lot of non-vegans with a similar mindset in this regard) would like to survive themselves while keeping the harm they inflict to other (somewhat sentient) forms of life as minimal as possible.
What intrigues me is that you are not advocating for sucide. You even emphasize that. Why is that? This implies that you must have some sort of moral concept, which is not rooted in Nihilism. Tell me about it!
I feel that’s [...] driven by emotion/instincts rather than logic/reason. The argument being made this way is more of an emotional blackmailing [...], not about giving an actual logical argument.
That's the thing about moral and logic: it is impossible to create moral through reason alone, which is equivalent to saying that logic has no moral. You need to start somewhere and accept it as given. This will be the very first premise. Based on that you can reason away and build a logically consistent moral concept.
You may find that Veganism is an ethical framework, which has the strongest logical consistency (at least to my knowledge) if you start with the premises "I want to be alive" and "suffering is bad".
As this is the very core, we can now discuss whether these premises are something we want to use as our ethical foundation. Of course you can reject it and try to live as an, e.g., amoralist. But even then you would make your decisions based on your individual belief system. And that one will probably have more logic holes than my socks. So saying that Veganism aims at emotional blackmailing is rather the very same cause for the existence of most moral beliefs. This mechanism works for all moral decisions, regardless of the specific philosophical movement. As I said before, you can't purely "logic" goals and thereby moral into existence.
Once you have this realisation, you'll usually find that going vegan is the only logically valid step.
You call me nihilist while arguing that I'm likely not really nihilistic. I feel that's a very fuzzy box you are trying to put me in :P ...but you are free to call it whatever you want so long as it's kept respectful.
The Universe doesn't have morals. But humans do. And evolution has ingrained a particular set of morals in our brains.
However, in those morals the benefit (you could say "thriving") of our species is the main theme, and it could not be other way since they emerge from natural selection.
This can be in conflict with the survival of other species too. And I do believe that all creatures with instinct are also moral beings... it's not that wolves are behaving immorally when they hunt sheep, they are behaving in the most morally correct manner that emerges from their natural selection. Their appetite is more important for the wolf than the sheep's suffering.
This seems logical if the only premise is environmental protection and preservation. It’s obvious that this is not the only premise which plays a role here.
Yes, my point was to show that the topic is not that simple. My first line was: "it depends on you morals"
"Suffering" and "empathy" taken as universal would not work, you'd need to draw the line at some point. So it becomes a question on where you draw the line. You can look into the eyes of a worm, speak to it and treat it like a child that has the same feelings a human would, and you'll be sad when it dies. But I don't see how our ability to project empathy towards an animal that has eyes justifies drawing the line there.
Don't you find it curious that most people only seem to care about an animal when it's relatively close in mechanism / behavior to a human? ...most people don't have second thoughts when it comes to killing a cockroach, for example. Is the desire to not have insects in the house more important than the insect's suffering? I suspect the meme wouldn't cause such an impact if it used that.
You may find that Veganism is an ethical framework, which has the strongest logical consistency (at least to my knowledge) if you start with the premises “I want to be alive” and “suffering is bad”.
If those 2 premises were enough to start with, then it would follow that it's ok to eat meat (or use animal products) as long as we could be absolutelly sure the animals involved did not "suffer" (and as long as it did not put our own lives in danger, which is, imho, a better point towards going plant-based ...but I won't derail into that).
Then it becomes a matter of accuratelly determining what constitutes "suffering". Does experiencing suffering require "pain" and a nervous system exactly like ours? Or is it possible that the only reason we experience "pain" through our nervous system is because the way we are programmed makes this the most efficient way for a mechanism of reward-punishment to emerge that is evolutionarily benefitial to our survival?
If other creatures have a different emergent mechanism to signal in their biology what's hurtful to their survival and morally wrong for them, having a different manifestation of what (I'd argue) could also be categorized as "suffering", shouldn't they be included? are we just only caring for the nervous response because that's one thing we can relate to? are we unfairly discriminating based on how similar is their biology to ours? why?
it is impossible to create moral through reason alone, which is equivalent to saying that logic has no moral. You need to start somewhere and accept it as given.
This is true, but only as the very first initial premise. You NEED logic to isolate what those premises should be (and to be able to extrapolate from those premises) if you actually want to maximize the success rate of the primal evolutionary drive that pushes our human morals.
I'd argue most crimes and acts considered immoral are driven by emotion too. You need logic if you want to form a coherent human moral that can be extrapolated to a higher abstract level. Because using emotion as a basis alone, without logical reasoning, would lead to contradictory and inconsistent results, the morals would be changing based on the circumstances in a way that is not logically sound.
This means that if you manipulate certain circumstances, you can manipulate the moral compass of someone who is driven by emotion and does not use logic. That form of manipulation is what I referred to as "emotional blackmailing".
Why is the meme asking us to "look in the eye" to the animal? why is it asking us to "tell" it to the animal as if it could understand the words of whichever language we speak?
Because it's trying to manipulate you into projecting your empathy towards it.
Hab nach dem Auszug aus dem Elternhaus kaum Fleisch gekauft. Und wenn dann war es beiprodukt bei convenience Sachen. Habe dann mich erstmal dazu entschlossen vegetarisch zu versuchen und bin dann auf einen Beitrag gekommen in dem erklärt wurde dass Milch Produkte das Tierleid ebenso hoch halten wie Fleisch Produkte. Da hab ich mir dann mit der Zeit immer weniger Käse etc gekauft bis es mir dann endlich einfacher viel vegan zu bleiben.
Ich mach mal den Anfang. Es waren wahrscheinlich mehrere Faktoren, aber ein herausstechender war die Dokumentation Earthlings
Die hat leider sonst niemanden in meinem näheren Umfeld überzeugt ¯\(ツ)/¯
Mir wurde nur davon erzählt was man da sieht... will das bis heute nicht anschauen :( Vegan lebe ich trotzdem
I say this to my begging cats anytime I sit down to have a snack.
Ich finde solche ja/nein Fragen nicht so effektiv, weil wir alle denken natürlich "Nein!", aber Omni-Trolls sagen ja, lachen sich tot und sind weg. Und wir stehen doof da.
Hat auch schon jemand 'Yes.' kommentiert 😅
Wir müssen hier in der Vegan-Community ja nicht mit jedem Beitrag effektiven Aktivismus betreiben. Der Thread ist einfach nur da, um sich gegenseitig auszutauschen (so die naive Hoffnung).
Ja, verstehe. Ich wollte nur eine Beobachtung teilen, die ich mit der Zeit gemacht habe. :)
Bin kein richtiger Veganer, bin auf dem Weg dazu. Aktuell esse ich fast nie Fleisch oder Fisch, aber schon noch ab und zu Käse. Andere Milchprodukte sind schon ersetzt oder gestrichen, aber Käse ist fast nicht zu ersetzen. Werde einfach einmal beginnen müssen darauf zu verzichten.
Meine Motivation ist das Klima. Ich bin nicht derselben Meinung wie viele Veganer, dass es kategorisch falsch ist Nutztiere zu halten. Ich glaube wenn das unter bestmöglichen Bedingungen getan wird (so a la Oma aufm Land hat ne Ziege die sie liebt) geht das in Ordnung. Dass eine solche Tierhaltung wegen der minimalen Produktion tierischer Erzeugnisse mit einer fast immer veganen Ernährung einhergeht ist klar. Dann gibt es noch Menschen, die in Orten der Welt leben, wo eine pflanzliche Ernährung nicht möglich ist, beispielsweise Island oder die Mongolei. Das sind aber Extrembeispiele und bieten keine Ausrede für die 99% der Menschen die an anderen Orten leben und Fleisch essen schlicht weil sie es wollen - wie ich es selber auch tat.
War bei mir auch so, dass ich dachte, nie auf Käse verzichten zu können. War aber am Ende viel einfacher als gedacht. Käse einfach durch Hummus, Avocado sowie andere Brotaufstriche ersetzt. Schon nach ein paar Wochen hatte ich überhaupt keine Lust mehr nach Käse und nach ca. 3 Monaten hats mich richtig davor geekelt. Einfach machen daher mein Tipp!
Edit: Wurde genau aus dem Grund vegan, den Moby hier beschreibt. Man kann ja einfach mal die schlimmsten Verbrechen durchgehen, die Menschen anderen Menschen antun können (Mord, Vergewaltigung, Folter, Kindsmord, etc.) Und sich dann überlegen, ob diese Verbrechen in der Tierzucht angewendet werden und warum das dort plötzlich völlig ok sein soll.
Und sich dann überlegen, ob diese Verbrechen in der Tierzucht angewendet werden und warum das dort plötzlich völlig ok sein soll.
Weil die gängige Meinung ist, dass für Menschen und Tiere nicht dieselben Rechte und derselbe Schutz gilt. Deswegen sind die genannten Verbrechen nur Verbrechen, wenn sie Menschen angetan werden. Ob diese Meinung korrekt ist lasse ich dahingestellt - wollte nur die Frage beantworten.
Ja, ist mir klar. Macht aber für mich keinen Sinn, da die meisten Menschen all diese Dinge nie selber einem Tier antun würden. Manche vielleicht das Töten selber, aber nie die Qual.
An Orten an denen eine rein pflanzliche Ernaehrung wirklich nicht moeglich ist, waeren die Menschen dort trotzdem vegan, selbst wenn sie ab und zu Tierprodukte verzehren, denn Veganismus heisst, das Leiden von Tieren zu verhindern soweit wie es praktisch moeglich ist.
Fing bei mir damit an dass ich gelesen hab wie scheiße die bedingungen in der Milchindustrie sind. Und wie viel mist ich mir damit gegebenenfalls reintrinke. War wirklich lange milchfrei aber omnivor bis ich dann langsam aufgehört hab fleisch zu kaufen.
Hauptanstoß sind nach wie vor umweltschutz und Korruption/Raffgier der Industrie. Tierschutz ist auch toll, war für mich aber tatsächlich eher ne Begleiterscheinung.
Lebst du denn komplett vegan, also auch einschließlich Kleidung und anderen Sachen außerhalb der Ernährung? Das lässt sich meiner Ansicht nach nur mit moralischen Überzeugungen begründen.
Hab ganz ehrlich bei Kleidung noch nicht so drauf geachtet, wobei ich einfach nicht oft was kaufe. Die letzten shirts die mir einfallen waren alle aus Baumwolle oder Leinen.
Müsste ich mal durchgucken.
Werde allerdings auch nix wegwerfen das ich schon habe. Zb hab ich noch lederreste von nem Projekt vor x jahren und ein trinkhorn. Würde ich heute nicht mehr kaufen aber moralische Überlegenheit ist mir die Verschwendung nicht wert.
Ich hab eigentlich jeden Tag Fleisch gegessen, aber ohne jemals über irgendwelche Folgen nachzudenken. So richtig braindead. Ein Influenza wurde dann vegan und hat aufgeklärt, dann hab ich auch diese Richtung eingeschlagen :)
Ich koche seit etwa 3 Jahren viel mehr selbst und fand es damals schon eklig mit rohem Fleisch zu hantieren. Es verdirbt auch so schnell. Dadurch hab ich dann sowieso schon weniger davon gemacht und generell mehr drauf geachtet was ich esse. Vor etwa einem Jahr hab ich Dominion gesehen und entschieden es geht nicht mehr.
Das wirkt sich natürlich auch auf andere Bereiche aus, wie Kleidung, Drogerieprodukte, Ansicht zu Zoos usw.
Weitere Einflüsse:
Was mich an der Bewegung stört, ist dass viele Leute nur schwarz-weiß denken und nicht den psychologischen Teil beachten. Meiner Ansicht nach sollte man nie erwarten dass es sofort (oder jemals) von 100 auf 0 geht. Alle haben ihre eigenen Sorgen, Traditionen, ein eigenes soziales Umfeld. Manche kennen keine Mahlzeit ohne Fleisch, für andere ist es normal auch mal was ohne zu essen. Die Hürde ist bei einigen höher als bei anderen. Dann auch noch auf Käse und andere Milchprodukte zu verzichten erscheint unmöglich.
Eine Alles oder Nichts Denke führt eher dazu dass Noch-Fleischesser abgeschreckt werden und in Abwehrhaltung gehen. Wenn ich mit Freunden darüber rede, gehe ich immer so vor dass ich sage, fang langsam an, probier hier und da mal, schau dir dies und das Video an. Ich bekomme normalerweise gespitzte Ohren und Nachfragen. Und ich lebe es halt einfach vor. Ich finde das ist ein guter Anfang. Einige werden weiter forschen und von selbst drauf kommen, andere sind einfach festgefahren.
Meine Mutter hat sich durch mich inspiriert auch damit beschäftigt und ist nun immerhin Vegetarierin. Ich denke für sie ist es schwieriger weil mein Vater noch nicht soweit ist und wohl nie wird.
Ich habe früher schonmal Earthlings gesehen. Das hat mich zwar schockiert, aber gebracht hat es nichts. Ich war einfach in einem anderen Mindset damals und vegan sein war eher komisch.
Was mich an der Bewegung stört, ist dass viele Leute nur schwarz-weiß denken und nicht den psychologischen Teil beachten.
Stimmt. Das ist ja auch der Grund weshalb veganer ja als sehr aufdringlich gelten(unter anderem durch Rafaela Raabs vorangetrieben). Mit der Brechstange versuchen jemanden zu "zwingen" hat noch nie und wird nie funktionieren. Essen ist eine Entscheidung die jeder für sich selber treffen muss. Wenn man so etwas "erzwingen" will erzeugt halt eher das Gegenteil.
Ich war ihm einen Veganer verliebt ;)
The way I see it, this is just life on our planet. The food chain is a fact of life and trying to deny that is silly.
That said I want animals to be treated humanely and killed without suffering.
I respect the hell out of people that can be vegetarian, but I don't judge people for eating meat.
People don't deny the food chain, maybe they deny just one thing less :)
We're not in the wild anymore, struggling for day-to-day survival. We buy packaged food in supermarkets.
And wether that food contains vegetables or body parts is our choice. Both are equally available, equally tasty, equally priced, equally healthy.
I certainly won't condemn native tribes living their life. I just believe that with greater power comes greater responsibility.
Yet our bodies have barely evolved over the last tens of thousands of years. In that regard equal health of all options is a very bold claim. Just as a vegan dog is not a healthy dog, many of the replacements you mention seem insufficient to me.
I'd be surprised if any significant part of your diet resembles what we evolved to. Our food has been bred for taste and sweetness, and lately also to optimize storage, transport and mostly profit. Instead of seasonal variations we get the same food all year around. Instead of regional food, we consume food grown all over the globe. We consume too much and move too little. But the real scare is we eat too much veggies?
Millions of people, entire cultures even, live on a vegetarian or vegan diet. Including high performing athletes. It's certainly possible.
On the other hand, millions of people live on an omnivore diet so bad it makes them sick.
I'm not saying one is good, the other is bad. It's obviously possible to live a healthy life either way (which was my initial intent in brevity), and it is possible to live an unhealthy life either way. Living meat-free in itself is as healthy or unhealthy as living meat-eating. It depends on how you do it.
Gar keiner, bin ich nicht. Aber ich finde es cool an Stellen wo man es ohne weiteres kann Vegane Produkte zu verwenden und deswegen zu reduzieren.
Gesundheit
Unterbewusst war ich lange überzeugt, dass es eigentlich richtig sein müsste. War lange Vegetarier. Hab dann irgendwann wegen Klima den Schritt gemacht und komplett vegan gegessen (bei Kleidung etc finde ich mich noch nicht zurecht), und später kamen dann moralische Argumente dazu, um dabei zu bleiben.
Aus Gesundheitlichen, weshalb ich abgesehen von Hafermilch auch keine vegane Fertigprodukte kaufe.
die erzählungen übers tierleid und umweltschutz. mochte fleisch aber generell noch nie, daher eigentlich der einzig sinnvolle schritt für mich.
Vegetarisch. Steinigt mich gerne, aber mir ging es nie um Tierwohl.
Fleisch schmeckt mir einfach nicht und Fisch schon mal gar nicht. Das Konzept, aufgrund Tierwohl seine Diät zu ändern erschließt mich (noch) nicht so ganz aber Respekt an jene die es tun!
Wieso erschliesst sich dir das Konzept nicht? Finde ich jetzt nicht so schwer zu begreifen, dass wenn man Tierprodukte verzehrt, irgendwo Tiere dafuer ausgebeutet werden muessen, ergo verbessert man Tierwohl, wenn man darauf verzichtet und dafuer muss man eben seine Ernaehrung umstellen.
Nope - I push the thought to the dark corners of my mind and try to get on with it.
I know it's the morally wrong thing to do, and I think with time, we'll be looked back upon as savages, but here I am.
I've been vegetarian before, and will likely go back to it soon, but in the meantime, I'm complicit in that suffering out of convenience.
I wish we'd just move past meat and normalise plant-based foods, but just like selfish convenience drives me to do the wrong thing, profit and general selfishness drives society broadly to do the wrong thing.
I’ve been vegetarian before, and will likely go back to it soon
What do you need to live aligned with your values? You don't need to answer me, I just want to encourage you to go in that direction. I think it feels much better for yourself and for people around you if values align with practice.
community is read-only! moved to other instance:
https://discuss.tchncs.de/c/vegande
as a true German-speaking vegan you might also be interested in the German-speaking vegan circle-jerk:
https://discuss.tchncs.de/c/kreisvegs
old community info:
Deutschsprachige Veganys
bitte beachten:
