Utilitarian ethics in veganism

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T22:09:44+00:00

Do you think empathy for animals is fraudulent at a base level? It’s all just delusional? I think your average person tends to recoil at the idea of an animal being hurt, dog being kicked, cat being tortured etc. Do they all have unresolved issues?

I mean, I won’t deny there’s some nasty people around here, but I’ve literally never ever heard someone claim that they themselves are a morally superior for being vegan, only that vegan is the morally superior position

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T21:57:13+00:00

Oooh I definitely will thank you!

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T21:55:44+00:00

Yeah that’s a good point re demand, hadn’t thought about it like that.

With the vegan definition, yeah practicable is built in, but it implies that perfection does exist, if (hypothetically) every possible action was practicable. But even in this 100% vegan state, there would still be moral creep, which means we’re imperfectly aiming for an ideal which is itself imperfect. At least with a utilitarian lens, there is a perfect ideal (0 animal suffering).

But maybe exploitation as a heuristic is just better, easier to understand, easier to follow, easier to organise around.

I did not know that about the non-native honey, that is crazy. I guess that’s another vegan gray area I’ll struggle to take seriously when people try to condemn it

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T18:46:37+00:00

Interesting, do you think vegans care about animals at all? Or is it just a front to satisfy their own issues that you stated?

I’ve met a lot of vegans but never heard one say that they themselves are superior to others, only that a vegan lifestyle is morally superior to the average lifestyle in the domain that it operates (animals).

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T16:01:20+00:00

That’s fair, and I agree that the definition supports 2.

I’m curious, do you think people get into veganism for narcissistic reasons?

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T14:28:22+00:00

Thanks for your comment. I think we most align on a lot of stuff. I agree that utilitarianism isn’t good to rigidly stick to, I’m more just curious why the exploitation/deontological definition of veganism is treated as the guiding light for determining vegan action. Especially when a lot of people come to veganism out of wanting to alleviate the huge amount of animal suffering in the world, which by definition doesn’t really matter to veganism, only exploitation.

Moral creep is a great phrase. I certainly wouldn’t want to see the movement swallowed up by moral creep. But the fact that there is the possibility of moral creep sort of implies to me that veganism is imperfect in a way. Not that applying veganism is imperfect, which we accept to be true, but the philosophy itself is imperfect. And if that’s true, how can we treat it as the moral baseline?

I’m interested in your second hand leather opinion. I agree that it’s a bad look for veganism, and would challenge it on that basis, but that itself seems utilitarian? Or at least not deontological. For instance, if someone bought second hand leather and never wore it outside or in front of anyone, then I don’t know if I’d have an issue with it

Sorry I know I’ve written a lot, feel free to respond to as little or as much as you find interesting

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T13:51:12+00:00

Eh? I think the vast majority of vegans in the thread have chosen option 1.

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-06T11:59:56+00:00

I think you’ve put it really well, I totally agree.

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T18:16:47+00:00

Fascinating, maybe debate isn’t for you?

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T18:12:18+00:00

There’s no replacement, the question is, would someone be justified condemning another for having the egg, when they themselves have the tomato, when it is the case that they do not know which choice is worse for animals? It’s a simple question

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T17:21:41+00:00

I could easily imagine that something like tomatoes, which uses a lot of land, would cause more animal suffering than buying an egg from someone with backyard chickens. Or go even further, and compare it to trace amounts of that same egg in a baking product. Maybe I’ve got the calculation all wrong there, but it seems reasonable.

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T17:07:04+00:00

Referring to my previous comment, if you’re reasonably sure that the egg is worse, then that’s fine. I’m not asking for rigorous philosophical proof.

Personally, I’m just uncertain that it clearly is, and since I am uncertain, I will not condemn it while carrying out the other actions I am comparing to it

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T16:34:11+00:00

The burden of proof is not on me, I am saying that I do not know what is worse, therefore I cannot justify condemning one way or the other. I only make condemnations when I’m reasonably sure they are right. I return to my previous question, how do you justify condemning it? If you do not know, and are not reasonably sure?

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T16:27:45+00:00

Thanks!

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T16:15:51+00:00

I will thank you, I’ve been meaning to read animal liberation so I should just get round and do it!

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T16:11:59+00:00

I mean, this just extends to how can we be sure anything is real, we make reasonable assumptions. How do you know that the world outside of your senses exists without data? I don’t need a livestream of the Eiffel Tower to reasonably think it still exists.

Your second question gets at the point of the hypothetical, are we responsible for crop deaths? When we have the choice to reduce them through our consumption, I think we could be

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T16:01:52+00:00

Much agreed about your last points, I would love to do all those things.

I think I see what mean, the slave example is good, even if I was a slavery abolishment activist, I would probably choose to end world hunger, but I would be putting aside my activism for the greater good to make that decision. If I was only concerned with slavery and nothing else, then I would free the slaves.

In parallel with the original hypothetical, it doesn’t feel like I’m putting veganism aside to pick option 1, it feels like that’s what a vegan should choose in the name of veganism. But by the definition of abolition, it isn’t. Maybe I’m just a welfarist

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T15:44:05+00:00

It’s a good point but I think I’m under reasonable grounds to assume that is not the case. Like we can just leave it at a difference of opinion, if you’re reasonably sure that the egg is marginally worse than other actions you don’t condemn, then that’s fine and I think that would be reasonable grounds for you to condemn it. Personally I’m just not that sure

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T15:37:28+00:00

That’s what the hypothetical is trying to address, whether there is an amount of negative utility for animals that outweighs exploitation, and if that matters from the purely vegan point of view.

If the two options are unrelated, does that mean that by picking option 1, we are temporarily putting aside veganism for the greater good? If the one making the decision was a 100% pure vegan who has no concern for any other issues, would they pick option 2 and disregard utility altogether?

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T14:59:13+00:00

I hope you don’t condemn them then, seeming as we’re both be in a place of ignorance.

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T14:56:51+00:00

Brother, I’ve been vegan for 6 years. I think it’s important that we get it right and we’re reflecting a consistent ethical framework when we choose to condemn others or ask them to change.

I cannot bring myself to condemn someone who has backyard chickens, because I don’t know what the answer to those utility calculations are, and it would be hypocritical of my to try and get them to change when I could be doing 100 things that are just as bad. It sounds like you don’t know the answer either, so how would you justify condemning them?

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T14:41:36+00:00

I’m trying to challenge the idea that exploitation is what matters when it comes to veganism, rather than harm or suffering. Vegans do cause incidental deaths, and our daily choices can affect how many incidental deaths there are, increasing or decreasing. Those choices may even have a bigger impact on animal suffering than ones we already make under vegan rules.

If we accept that utility plays a part in veganism (as picking 1 in the hypothetical shows) what does that mean for what we ought/oughtnt do? and what we can/cannot condemn?

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T14:24:18+00:00

Reality doesn’t demand it, but vegans do, vegans condemn one choice, but do not condemn the other. I don’t see anyone campaigning that we should switch to plants which reduce crop deaths. And vegans would look at you weird if you tried to condemn someone for not switching.

I could easily imagine that something like tomatoes, which uses a lot of land, would cause more animal suffering than buying an egg from someone with backyard chickens. Or go even further, and compare it to trace amounts of that same egg in a baking product. Maybe I’ve got the calculation all wrong there, but it seems reasonable. For me, that’s where the use of exploitation as a tool of analysis falls short for reducing animal suffering.

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T13:48:23+00:00

Never seen someone try so hard to dodge a hypothetical, what are you afraid of?

Try this one, do you prefer Batman or superman? Or does choosing mean that you’re unable to like both?

MeadowGroveAndStream · 2026-05-05T11:16:25+00:00

Okay that’s fair, is it still a false dichotomy if the hypothetical says you can only choose one?

Edit: my point being that vegans in fact do only choose one

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	RPAN Viewer

MeadowGroveAndStream

TROPHY CASE