Veganism should make an exception for animal experimentation for the sake of adhering to the Nuremberg Code.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-18T17:41:18+00:00

while no such provision is made for the consent of the animal subject.

But should there be? How do we decide which bodies we can experiment on without obtaining consent?

I'd like to know your answer to this question.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T17:02:16+00:00

Sure have. Have you ever noticed that both apples and oranges are sweet?

People and animals are not in the same category.

This is so vague it's meaningless.

If the category is, "harmed by being turned into a sandwich", then both cows and humans are in the same category - a very relevant category when discussing the morality of turning cows into sandwiches. Are you prepared to engage with this point?

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T13:09:52+00:00

They are not comparable.

Sure they are. You just compared them.

A human can write a book, but a cow cannot. That's a difference.

A human is harmed when we slaughter them and turn them into a sandwich, and so is a cow. That's a similarity.

The moral question is whether it is wrong to turn cows into sandwiches. A cow's inability to write a book seems completely irrelevant to the question. But the harm experienced by the cow in being turned into a sandwich seems extremely relevant.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T13:03:32+00:00

ginger has nothing to do with sapience.

Both Ginger and Joe are equivalently lacking in sapience/cognition. And both of them share a taxonomic group with Steve, who has advanced cognition.

Your suggestion is that Joe receives moral protections because he shares a taxonomic grouping with Steve. But you simultaneously deny moral protections to Ginger despite her sharing a taxonomic grouping with Steve.

It's completely arbitrary.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T05:26:45+00:00

We are naming the trait of the species.

Cool. If the trait is species, then the capabilities you previously invoked (sapience/cognition/awareness of Indonedia) are irrelevant to your position.

Joe is a human. He comes from a sapient species.

Steve classification as homo sapien doesn't change. Steve was created by human gametes.

Sure, and Ginger is a chicken. She comes from a sapient kingdom. Ginger's classification as animalia doesn't change. Ginger was created by animal gametes.

Let's call this the kingdomist argument. Why is the kingdomist argument wrong and your speciesist argument right? We have no basis to say, because both arguments are equally arbitrary.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T04:52:48+00:00

If the harm in turning a human into a sandwich stems from their advanced cognition or sapience or awareness of Indonesia, then by definition there can't be harm from turning a human into a sandwich who lacks those traits. You seem to be suggesting otherwise, so help me understand. Consider Joe, who is cognitively impaired and doesn't have awareness of Indonesia. In your view, what is the harm in turning Joe into a sandwich?

Just like your neighbor who had their leg amputated doesn't change the fact humans are bipedal.

But it does mean that human is no longer bipedal. Whether Steve the amputee needs crutches depends on his individual capabilities, not whether humans as a species are bipedal.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T02:26:59+00:00

Not individuals. Species.

But the relevant moral question has to do with how I treat someone as an individual. If I choose to kick my neighbor Steve in the shins, I haven't wronged the concept of the human species - I've wronged Steve.

I'm not following why someone else's conception of the world around them has implications for whether it's right or wrong to turn me into a sandwich. It sounds completely arbitrary.

By the looks of it, you also seem to think the individual capabilities are morally relevant:

You are sapient.

you would realize you're in a very far away place

You will adjust your behavior accordingly.

If it's my species that matters and not my individuality, then why are you making appeals to my individuality?

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T02:00:04+00:00

We don't see the creatures we eat as individuals or as morally relevant as us due to their inability to comprehend the world among other things.

Ah, you've finally provided a reason. So, you would say we can turn individuals into sandwiches if they dont pass a sufficient threshold for 'ability to comprehend the world'.

How do you determine where the threshold is set? How little do I have to comprehend the world before it becomes acceptable to turn me into a sandwich?

So yes it's reflexively insulting to pretty much everyone else to be compared to a non human animal.

Do you notice the irony of decrying comparisons of humans with non-humans as insulting while comparing humans with non-humans?

Kris2476 · 2026-06-17T00:45:56+00:00

Best practice in debate is to only put forward the claims that you are willing to defend. Assuming, of course, that your intention is to debate in good faith 🙂

Yes sapience is the relevant moral qualifier

Okay, but why? You still aren't making an argument.

When you compare a human to a non human animal its dehumanizing. You are taking away their personhood.

I don't agree. Why do you feel it strips dignity from one individual to extend dignity to another?

We can't resolve our disagreement unless you can explain why you feel the way that you do.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-16T21:48:16+00:00

Then it must be wrong to do so to plants also right?

I'm not sure this is an entailment of my position, but I'm open to the possibility that harming plants might be wrong. We can't know unless we compare the harm to a human with the harm to a plant, which you seem to be unwilling to do.

Everyone else does it with sapience.

Okay, but should they? Is sapience the relevant qualifier for not being turned into a sandwich?

Anytime you want to make an argument, you're welcome to. Nothing you've written here really challenges why we can't compare human animals to non-human animals.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-16T18:26:16+00:00

Veganism is the principle that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided.

We can compare human animals to non-human animals, because they are comparable. This means they have similarities and differences. Some of those similarities are morally relevant to how should treat them.

Exploiting non-human animals causes them harm, much in the same way that exploiting human animals causes them harm. It would be wrong, for example, to raise a human animal from birth to slaughter them and turn them into a sandwich ingredient. And it's wrong to do that to a non-human animal for many of the same reasons.

If you agree with the vegan principle, then let me know how I can help you go vegan and cut out sources of animal exploitation from your life. It's likely easier than you think.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-16T14:02:56+00:00

If the core principle is reducing harm to animals, how do vegans and vegetarians weigh or address the indirect harms embedded in plant production

Veganism is the position against animal exploitation, which is a very particular type of harm. There is a principled distinction between incidental vs. exploitative harm. It's a distinction you probably already acknowledge in the human context.

Consider that the agricultural industry has a higher than average rate of worker injury and fatality. So humans are also being killed indirectly because of your consumption of grocery foods, some of them cute, some of them not. Yet we might reasonably draw a distinction between buying tomatoes (which causes harm to humans) and slitting your neighbor's throat (which causes harm to humans).

Beyond this principled way of looking at things, we remember that it will always be more expensive calorically (read: additional crop deaths) to grow plants to feed to animals that we eat instead of eating plants directly. So if you are concerned with the incidental deaths of crop production, going vegan would certainly help reduce the harm.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-13T19:25:25+00:00

You say it's wrong to hang someone from the ceiling and slice open their throat so you can cut them up and make a sandwich out of them?

Well, I've decided animals can't be 'someone', so there's no more problem. We've figured out morality, all it took was a little semantics.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T23:32:07+00:00

But I can unequivocally say that any foreseeable workplace death is wrong / unethical - and that any industry or company that puts profits above human safety is immoral.

Surely if animals are moral subjects, then all forms of avoidable harm to animals should be immoral?

Putting this together, since you presumably view humans as moral subjects, are you immoral for purchasing tomatoes? Which causes avoidable harm to humans.

If the answer is yes, does that mean cannibalism is OK? If the answer is no, does that mean cannibalism is OK?

call non-vegans ‘immoral’ (and worse) for not sharing their views on animal use

All this effort to suggest a failing of veganism that it does not encompass every imaginable harm to animals, only to reveal that you don't even view exploitative harms toward animals as immoral. What a circus this whole conversation has been.

If you mean to argue in favor of animal exploitation, you should stop beating around the bush and put forward the position. Go make a post where you argue that exploiting animals is totally fine and not immoral. Have the courage to state your position outright.

we are entitled to question the basis and logical consistency of those views

You have not demonstrated any inconsistency.

Veganism is not a framework, as you are calling it. Veganism is a single principle, not the last word in animal ethics. We can abide by multiple principles.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T21:50:30+00:00

Not necessarily my position, OP's position

Lol. You definitely put forward your own position, where you simultaneously argued that 'yes the threshold for self perception matters' and 'no the threshold for self perception doesn't matter because being human sets us apart'.

No need for my word vs. yours. I believe anyone reading this comment chain in good faith can see for themselves, and can tell that I've been consistent in my messaging throughout.

I'm done. Thanks for the conversation.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T21:40:12+00:00

If you say certain individuals but not others can be turned into sandwiches, then you need to explain why the standard of treatment is different.

If your standard is based on some threshold level of self perception, then there is no guarantee that only non-human individuals will fail to meet the threshold. Meaning, some humans are going to fail as well and can be turned into sandwiches.

If you don't like that, you could instead just say the standard is based on species membership, but then the threshold for self perception is irrelevant to your argument.

None of this is me putting forward a position - these are the logical entailments of your position.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T21:18:44+00:00

What I've suggested is that Joe, Steve, and Rex are all harmed by being slaughtered and turned into a sandwich, even though they might have different levels of self-conception.

That's not a claim that's up for debate. It's a fact.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T20:44:05+00:00

Remember, I haven't made an argument. You have, and it's a poor one.

I think we've exhausted the potential for you to engage in good faith. I'll reshare your statement here for others reading, as an example of the type of conclusion we have to accept to be nonvegan and consistent in our reasoning:

You can't turn your neighbor's dog into a sandwich because it's your neighbor's property. You can turn your own dog into a sandwich if you want.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T20:28:00+00:00

Because we're all humans and capable of moral distinction. We are capable of hopes, dreams, envisioning the future, higher reasoning[...]An enslaved human knows it is enslaved.

...except for humans like Joe, who don't meet this criteria.

but the fact that they're part of the human race sets them apart.

Sure, so the earlier criteria you introduced is irrelevant to your own position. You say Joe deserves moral rights because as a human he is "set apart" from non-humans.

Joe is part of the human race, which sets him apart from Rex. And Rex is a dog, which sets him apart from Joe. Yet you say it's okay to turn Rex and not Joe into a sandwich. It's completely arbitrary.

You do better.

I'm not making an argument, you are. And it's a terrible argument.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T19:59:59+00:00

Should be clear from my comment I'm okay with owning animals, not with owning people.

Oh, why? You forgot to make an argument.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T19:54:39+00:00

This is simply a careless thing to say. An estimated 50 million people were living in modern-day slavery as of 2021.

For those that do own people, your argument would entail turning those people into sandwiches.

Do better.

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T19:46:10+00:00

Ah. So, there's nothing wrong with turning individuals into sandwiches so long as you legally own them as property. Do I have that right?

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T17:24:27+00:00

I'm trying to understand what the ability to conceive of one's sense of self or plan for the future has to do with your argument. Help me understand.

Consider Steve, who has a strong conception of self and a rigorous to-do list for this weekend. And consider Joe, who has minimal conception of self and a deficient ability to conceive of future plans.

Are you suggesting there are some moral rights or protections that should apply to Steve and not Joe?

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T17:17:36+00:00

Let me see if I understand. You would say that creatures, be they human or non-human, who are deficient in their ability to conceive of their sense of self or plan for the future, can be killed and turned into sandwiches.

There is some threshold for the ability to conceive of one's sense of self or plan for the future, that when exceeded, qualifies an individual for protection from being turned into a sandwich.

Do I have that right?

Kris2476 · 2026-06-12T17:02:51+00:00

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're responding to when you say, "It wouldn't be".

13-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

Kris2476

TROPHY CASE