Hi /c/vegan,
I’m a baby “vegan”, just started about a month ago. I started watching the YouTuber MicTheVegan as my main influence.
I’ve been really working on and developing my belief system. The issue is, my belief system so far, while it is like 97% consistent with veganism, does have some conflicts with veganism, and I think some people would say that I can’t call myself a vegan because of that.
Basically, I think it’s too broad to simply lump all animals into one category and say that any at all exploitation of them is wrong. Instead, I like taking a very scientific approach about what we know about different animals’ cognitive and emotional abilities, and perhaps prioritize different groups of animals differently.
While I’m still developing my belief systems, here’s a basic rundown of it:
Tier 1: Primates, cetaceans (whales, dolphins), elephants, certain bird species (corvids, parrots), octopuses
These animals are highly intelligent and should never be exploited for any manner. They should not be kept as pets or in zoos (I suppose exceptions for if an animal is injured beyond repair).
Tier 2: Domesticated mammals (dogs, cats), farm animals (pigs, cows), other bird species, certain fish species (cleaner wrasse, groupers)
The only difference between these animals and tier 1 animals, is that I believe they can be kept in captivity (pets or in zoos). However, they need to be kept up to really high standards. They need a lot of space and a lot of enrichment. Yes, I currently believe that most people who keep dogs as pets do not treat them well enough, but I also believe that if you do treat them well that it is okay.
Tier 3: Reptiles, amphibians, remaining fish species.
The only difference between these animals and tier 2 animals is that I think the standard for keeping them in captivity can be slightly lowered. I say this as a reptile lover, I have a couple lizards as pets. These animals still need very high standards for treatment, but I believe it’s okay to keep them in “cages” (really terrariums and aquariums). Basically, the science we have says that these animals just don’t need the same level as enrichment. Some lizards will literally sit in one spot for days. And yes, I highly believe that these animals are abused in reality. Many people keep these animals in far too small enclosures, among other problems.
The discussion of whether or not it’s okay to breed these animals is highly nuanced, but I know with reptiles and amphibians, they really don’t have any connection to their offspring so I don’t think it’s unethical to separate them. Some reptiles who lay eggs will even lay eggs regardless of if they are fertilized or not. I haven’t made my mind up about it, but I think you could make an argument that you could ethically breed reptiles, maybe even argue that allowing them to breed let’s them live a more natural life.
Tier 4: Insects, arachnids
Okay this is where a lot of vegans will lose me. These animals should absolutely never be tortured, but I personally think that they can be ethically farmed and consumed. I think these animals have simple enough brains that their quality of life when in a farmed environment really isn’t that much different than their natural lives. I personally don’t eat bugs, but I feed them to my lizards. That being said, I still think they deserve a decent amount of space, some enrichment, and a cruelty free life up until their death.
Tier 5: Bivalves (clams, mussels), annelids (earthworms), sponges.
Once again will get some hate for it, but these animals I also believe can be farmed and with even less consideration than the tier 4 animals. I don’t really think these animals need any laws protecting them. They don’t have central nervous systems.
Animal I’m not sure about: Crustaceans (somewhere between tier 3 and tier 4), Many fish species need more research (but I do standby that some fish, like carp and goldfish, belong in my tier 3).
I’m curious what other vegan’s thoughts are about this. Can I not call myself a vegan because of this?
Intellect is a red herring.
Jeremy Bentham understood this 200 years ago: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
As a thought experiment, ask yourself if you would be happy to harm a mentally-disabled human being simply because of their cognitive deficiency.
There’s a large gap between mentally-disabled human and a worm, for example. There’s also humans literally born without a brain.
Intellect is correlated with ability to suffer. For example, a human can experience ongoing trauma from something that happened to them in the past, but that’s likely not possible for creatures with low intelligence. Also, you have to consider if reacting to impulses is the same as feeling pain. If they aren’t complex enough for it to be pain, than just a reaction to something isn’t necessarily suffering.
For context, many people did (and still do) make exactly the same case for babies, often performing painful surgical procedures on them with no kind of anaesthetic. Nevertheless…
Caterpillars that are exposed to a stimuli shortly before pain is inflicted on them still react negatively to the stimuli after becoming butterflies.
While the original goal was to see how much of a caterpillar was still in a butterfly, the result was a basic trauma response; something in the past hurt them and it now induces fear.
Sure, maybe they don’t get PTSD from seeing other caterpillars maimed for science, but simple trauma is still trauma.
Do you have any basis for this beyond it being personally convient? Pain is essential for survival, especially without intelligence. It plays a greater role than even vision or hearing, both of which the creatures you’re talking about clearly have.
Is it morally justified to inflict pain and fear on a creature that outwardly reacts to it, simply because it can’t be proven its “true” pain and fear inside their minds, according to your arbitrary standard?
Asserting “their pain is not like our pain” without actual proof, it’s equally likely that they physical pain beyond what humans are capable of experiencing.
But that’s never proposed, likely because it makes things less morally convient.
That last point sounds like the pure speculation it is. The point is that we don’t know. In this situation, I personally would prefer to err on the side of no suffering.
I agree that humans (and presumably a small handful of other species) are fundamentally different in one way: their ability to project and to imagine the future. And that this adds the question of psychological suffering. But for the purposes of the question, physical suffering surely trumps the mental variety.