I have a pet hen. She's not a full rescue one, but how I ended up with her is an incredibly long story. She's very needy, thus spoiled and healthy as a result. Because wild Gallus sp already lay a lot of eggs when in less than optimal wild conditions, a spoiled one just cannot stop popping them out even if she wanted to, and she won't let me feed her less. The daily egg laying session is just a morning routine for her before begging for food. At the rate she lays them, they'd just get left to rot even if they were fertilized by a rooster so I eat them. I do not, and have no intention of, ever selling them or encouraging anyone to ever commercialize an animal. But I spend all the time caring for her, so why can't she give me a delicious breakfast back if it does her no harm?
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
People will argue about whether or not the eggs count as vegan from a philosophical standpoint but beyond the semantics this behavior does not seem to be something that is unethical.
Whether it’s classified as vegan or not I don’t think most vegans would or should be upset with this scenario if it is being described accurately.
I think a lot of vegans have a knee jerk reaction to posts/scenarios like this because there are hundreds of meat eaters who will just lie non stop about animal welfare to justify eating meat and then throw histrionic fits if you question them, so there is suspicion etc.
Anyways I don’t think you’re doing anything unethical in any way and whether or not it classifies as vegan would depend on the definition a vegan chooses. Probably not vegan but completely fine ethically would be my stance.
If your chicken is happy, healthy, and living her best life, then she will lay eggs.
If the reason you are vegan is to avoid the animal cruelty present in the farming system, then you have done that. In fact, I would argue you have gone above and beyond by looking after a farm animals as a pet.
I rate, enjoy the eggs. If you're still not comfortable eating them, then you can donate them to a food shelter or cook them for dog. That way they at least do not go to waste.
The animals that chickens are descended from, red jungle fowl live like 15 years in the wild and lay like a handful of eggs a year. People assume that because we breed animals for exploitation, i.e. we selectively breed sheep with a mutation that causes them to continuously grow their wool when that's not beneficial to them at all (sheep used for wool are found growing maggots in the folds of their skin in the likes of Australia), that that justifies exploitation. Believe it or not taking something an animal give birth to on a regular basis is stressful to that animal! Even if said animals essentially your backyard "pet". You may not view it that way because stealing eggs from chickens is normal to you but it is stressful. Regardless of whether we have selectively bred those animals to birth things we take them from them which is grotesque.
See: Why don’t vegans eat backyard eggs?
So, you are saying this situation should never have existed ethically, but it does exist. There’s lots of things life (unrelated to veganism) that exist from a prior immoral acts that you have to deal with as they exist. That’s OP’s question. OP isn’t asking about the genetic history of her chickens, but what to do about this bird in particular.
I understand and agree with your point on certain parts. We as a species have selectively bred most domesticated animals to a point that is harmful for them. A lot of carnists use the excuse of "they produce it anyway" to justify the continuation of the Animal Agriculture industry while ignoring the fact that we have had to genetically engineer these animals to be that way in order to sustain our greed.
However, on an individual basis (such as a pet chicken), the damage has already been done and this chicken will still lay eggs at a rate unhealthy for it regardless of whether the eggs are eaten or not. As for the stress part, you're right that it can be stressful to remove an egg from a hen, however the alternative is often that the hen will sit on the unfertilised egg until it rots and this can cause health issues. The ethical thing for the hen's health would be to remove the egg, and there are plenty of standard ways to do this to minimise stress.
It's often spread in vegan spaces that chickens eat their own unfertilised eggs to "recoup nutrients" but as far as I am aware this is a behaviour that spawns out of issues with their diet (and is a sign they are not getting the nutrition they need from their diet) rather than a healthy behaviour.
Basically I think it's personal preference and comfort, but abstaining from the eggs they produced isn't (in my opinion) acting against the animal agriculture industry and the exploitation of chickens because consuming the eggs does not contribute to those things.
Pet chickens also have the opportunity to get an implant which causes them to stop laying eggs. If the owner has a good enough vet, and the chicken begins to struggle with laying, this is an option
Our local animal sanctuary said all their chickens are on birth control, and this reduces their egg laying to around ~1 month. I'd argue it's vegan to eat that egg, but if you're intentionally keeping a pet chicken and not affording it the medicine to reduce all that burden on its body, that's unkind.
That may be so, but modern chickens are not red jungle fowls. They would not lay a handful of eggs a year in the wild. They would most likely not survive in the wild at all. And I'm just guessing here, but I imagine being surrounded by rotting eggs is also stressful to the animal. Is that really what you want for them?
Seeing as it's a terrible thing that we have selectively bred sheep for wool over the last few millenia, should we now leave them to grow maggots in unshaved wool in the name of ethical purity? That seems selfish.
This is ,a take, definitely. Between bot flies(= naughty human) and birthing birds, it is something.
Sounds like someone never seen a chicken. they drop eggs willy nilly in/on anything that exists with little regard for their leavings (birthing?)
Like I think most people who are reacting negatively are used to people purposely adopt fleets of chickens just to get eggs. I ended up with one spoiled girl and eggs as a result of that and I feel guilty using them but I feel even guiltier just throwing them away!!!
The question of whether or not something is morally right is not exactly the same as whether or not something is vegan. You can argue that eating the eggs does no harm, and you can argue that wasting the eggs would be worse, but you're just arguing that eating the eggs is not morally wrong.
Even if you could get everyone to agree that eating the eggs is not morally wrong, that doesn't make them vegan. Something being "right" doesn't automatically make it "vegan."
In fact, your entire original post makes no attempt to actually argue, defend, or debate the notion that eating the eggs is vegan. Your entire argument is that eating the eggs is/should be acceptable. Just because it's acceptable doesn't make it vegan.
Feed them back to her in her feed. Those are nutrients lost and it’s completely normal for them to eat them.
Do those nutrients ultimately matter in the case of a “well fed” and cared for hen?
They presumably have a diet sufficient enough to replenish whatever is used up in egg laying. If they didn’t, there would be indications. Hens decrease or even entirely halt egg production if they’re not getting enough to eat, and/or calcium deficiency becomes apparent in the shell quality.
Why does it matter who eats the egg, if we decide the egg will be eaten regardless, and the chicken will suffer no detriment one way or another?
I really don’t have a cock in this fight but raising chickens in isolation is absolutely not recommended, some would even say abusive. They’ve evolved to be social animals, just like humans. It would be like if you never got to see or talk to any other human being and just lived with your chicken caretakers. It might sound cool but you would eventually lose your shit.
If you’re going to keep her please get at least 2 other birds. 2 birds is the absolute least you should have but 3 is really the minimum to maintain a flock dynamic and chickens need to socialize.
Edit to add - speaking of cocks and healthy social dynamics, also consider adding a rooster. He will not only forage bugs and gift them to the hens but will maintain a defensive perimeter around them and ward off perceived threats, all of which help the hens feel more secure and dissuades them from picking on one another or developing other self destructive and antisocial behaviors.
I think it also depends on WHY someone is a vegan. But most ethical vegans would be ok with this relationship given there's no cruelty. I personally believe it's your responsibility to enjoy the labors of her love! Lol
It's definitely leagues ahead of what we see in industrial practices and how the vast majority of eggs most people come into contact with are generated. However, personally I am unable to see how that process is vegan (that is, the whole homesteading/small farmer having hens example). Just because nothing is killed or there isn't some violence entailed doesn't mean exploitation doesn't occur. It still situates the animal as the commodity-producing object for human use, that just cannot ever be vegan in my eyes.
I don’t think it’s vegan either I just think it’s a non vegan practice that is ethically fine or at least very close to fine under the vegan framework.
It’s still some amount of exploitation arguably but only in a very minor way.
I think one of the few interesting gray areas for vegans is pets, and one of the more interesting debates revolving around whether owning an obligate carnivore like a cat is vegan. I don’t think it is vegan but others argue they’re still a vegan.
OP I think basically everyone would agree is not vegan but is close enough that the practice doesn’t seem harmful.
Yeah, it certainly isn't harmful in the ways that other animals are harmed in human industries, but it is still technically a relationship between owner and property, consumer and commodity.
This is not the thing that I would spend energy objecting to. That said, I would definitely encourage you to replace this breakfast with a big fruit breakfast followed by a time gap of 2-3 hours before eating anything else. It is a massive upgrade once you get used to it.
Fruit is my usual breakfast!
I tried this and I feel better eating something high in protein and fat once I wake up or just fasting until lunch. The sugar crash is real. Maybe it doesn't affect you the same way though.
Veganism is the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals. Having your own chicken produce eggs for you is still a form of exploitation. Therefore, those eggs are not vegan.
I don't believe this is true. Veganism is the ethical principle that humans should live by minimizing the suffering of other animals (one of such type of suffering is exploitation). There is no such thing as "living without exploiting other animals." Animal exploitation and suffering is all around you. You take the steps you can to minimize it, though.
The lettuce you ate today still caused death of animals. However, you've made the call that that on the net, this amount of suffering is less than that of factory farmed meat (a premise I totally agree with).
With that principle in mind - it begs the question of "is eating the eggs of the hen in this instance producing less suffering than readily available alternatives.
I would say absolutely yes; the exploitation of a single hen for eggs (it's exploitation being bred for producing eggs and being "owned" as a pet") produces significantly less suffering than consuming crops. A single hen allowed to graze in the yard, and have shelter from predators, and so on, is suffering far less than the field mice killed for crops.
It's always great to hear from non-vegans what veganism is.
No. Veganism is the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals. That's how it was originally defined. It has nothing to do with "minimizing suffering".
Go and educate yourself before trying to debate topics you have no clue about.
You didn't read the comment at all.
If veganism is living without exploiting other animals at all, then that means there is not a single vegan alive on planet earth, and therefore the word "vegan" is meaningless.
I'm personally new to veganism, but my view is that vegan is an ideal, and an unrealistic one, about ending animal exploitation. Yes it's necessary to eat food from the grocery store for most people, and yes that means animals are still exploited in that process, even farming vegan food. But we still choose plant based products because it's a massive jump towards that ideal compared to the alternative.
I like how you didn't refute a single point. Ad hominem.
(Also -am vegan btw lmao)
I don't care how someone defined it. I'm saying that definition is more accurate. You without a doubt engaged in behavior today that caused animal suffering. This is undeniable. You drove on roads that were paved over mole hills. You paid taxes for a forestry service that will cull deer. You ate crops that required invertebrates to be killed or displaced.
All you can do is your best to avoid this behavior where feasible to minimize the suffering to the largest extent possible.
Engage with the actual concept here: Is consuming this hen's eggs more or less ethical than some x amount of animals that died for crop farming for the food you would eat alternatively?
then give up almost everything you eat because nearly everything harms animals in some way. or do you only care about animals enough to posture when theyre being exploited and not when theyre being killed with pesticides, deforestation and the like?
Simple fact is there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do to completely eliminate animal harm. the simple existence of humans harms animals.
You can and absolurely should do your best to minimize the harm you and those you surround yourself with do to animals if thats what you want to do. but dump this delusion that vegans "live without exploiting other animal" you dont. nobody does
Also
the common ones I see when vegans tout this BS ill just list off my retorts now incase.
You have a dog? youre exploiting its ability to keep burglars and prey animals away
Cat? exploiting its ability to keep away pests
Bird? it keeps your home free of insects as do spiders, lizards and the like
by your logic vegans shouldnt own pets at all. symbiotic relationships are still technically exploitation, youre just exploiting eachother
do you absolutely never (Since you became vegan) step on ant hills? swat flys? mosquitos? kill spiders and other insects?
If you HAVE done any of those things or own a pet then you, by your own logic, are not vegan.
the simple fact is all you can ever hope to do is minimize your impact
That’s absolutely fucking ridiculous. I was vegan for years until I became homeless and had to eat whatever I could find or starve. Am I allowed to have an opinion? What if I become vegan again, how long do I have to abstain from meat before my perspective is valid?
If you eat veggies that you purchased from a grocery store that were grown using fish emulsion and bone meal are you vegan?
That is impossible to do without starving to death. Lol. All food, including plants, exploits animals in some way (even if it's just ruining their habitat but usually in that case some animals are killed by the pesticides too). It's just a question of which foods cause the least exploitation to animals and in this scenario eating the egg is not exploiting a single animal.
Some atheists know way better what Christianity is and its rules. Same with non-vegans and Veganism.
No you have a narrow utilitarian framework but veganism is not historically only utilitarian nor should it be. There are many flaws with utilitarianism. A total liberation rights based approach is the way
This is not classically utilitarian in principle (if that's what you mean); it's consequentialist (of which utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism).
Utilitarianism is specifically concerned with maximization of happiness, well-being, pleasure, etc. (positive utility). This is quite different than minimizing suffering.
This would be most similar to negative utilitarianism.
Deontological veganism is cute in principle, but unworkable.
Deontological vegans would say "don't eat then hen's eggs," then proceed to eat crops that required the death of animals to eat.
Deontological ethics only works when there is viable alternative modes of operating absent the action being designated as deontologically "unethical".
I.e. it's easy to say deontologically "murder is wrong and shouldn't be done," because the easily viable alternative to murdering is to... not murder.
Human's have to eat and in the current system we have, all food production entails animal suffering (unless you are willing to spend the cash on fully lab grown plants or mushrooms; I know of no vegans doing this).
You have to eat. You are merely offered the choice of which of these to engage in. Hence, consequentialism (negative utilitarianism) becoming the only remaining workable solution.
You can either eat this hen's eggs; or shift your consumption away to another food. In the end you must eat.
So the only question that remains; what would you eat and is the net suffering of that consumption more or less than the eggs from OP's hen.
Deontological vegans are just "delusional vegans" that shift their exploitation of animals to exploitation and suffering they are either naive or ignorant of. (Or consequentialists, but refuse to part from saying deontological ethical statements to feel good and fit in.)
By this definition even you aren't vegan. The land you live on, the food you eat, the car you drive are all built up on the suffering of animal wellbeing.
The short answer to this is this is just a nirvana fallacy as well as context denial which leads to a false comparison. Plain and simple. The longer answer is below.
There is a difference of scale between the situations, of intention and desired outcome between situations, and of practicality which denies the context that is relevant and meaningful between circumstances to make vegans appear comparable to non-vegans. Roads and land that had to be expelled of animal life before human settlements could be created on them are, indeed, not vegan because animals are exploited: nobody disputes that. However, there is a difference of scale between the animals we kill for consumer use/food in the animal-industrial complex and those that everyone is responsible for in virtue of the land/roads/civilizations we live in/on. Many billions more animals are intentionally killed for human use in our food economies than from habitat loss. The funny thing is: it is the modern livestock industries which are a driving force FOR habitat loss which exploits and kills animals, too. Again, another example of the non-vegan's intellectual dishonesty.
The other difference that is ignored is intention and desired outcome. Animals we execute for food items around the world are meaningfully different to the animals that were expelled and sometimes killed to create roads. Animals exploited and killed during habitat loss are different from animals that are born into captivity with the desired outcome being their execution for human consumption.
The most relevant difference is practicality. Assuming non-vegans care about animal suffering, which they don't, if you gave both groups access to a civilization that does not rely or depend on animal exploitation or to remain in our current system, vegans would choose the former. It is easier to not buy a steak than it is to not use a road or live in modern civilization, but if given the choice vegans would choose the option that does not rely on animal exploitation.
No argument here. Its about doing the best you can.
Which brings it back to OPs hen situation. The hen is already alive. OP is doing their best to care for the hen while eating the eggs said hen produces.
So it is vegan, because like you said. It's about the intention. Not absolute zero exploitation.
"Its about doing the best you can."
Yup. Tons of vegans cope and think that all they need to do to avoid animal exploitation is to buy tofu instead of meat. That couldn't be further from the truth, but that is a good start.
" The hen is already alive. OP is doing their best to care for the hen while eating the eggs said hen produces.
So it is vegan, because like you said. It's about the intention. Not absolute zero exploitation."
I don't think so. That you care for a being and keep it alive doesn't mean it isn't exploited. Think about all the wage labor that occurs around the world today, the workers are taken care of with some benefits and a wage, that doesn't mean exploitation does not occur. Exploitation has to do with actions that make use of a thing. Keeping animals caged or captive to produce eggs for you is exploiting them for a resource: it doesn't matter how well you treat them.
The point about intention is just to say that non-vegans have different intentions with comparison to industrial farming, not that having good intentions means that exploitation does not occur.
I already conceded that the situation OP described is leagues better than what many animals experience right now, but they are both exploited in the same way for commodities they produce.
Workers have to choose to work, a hen has no choice about creating eggs. If that hen is being exploited for eggs, I'm being exploited for skin cells by my dust mite overlords.
Well, we can get into the nature of labor and wages in economies, but needless to say I emphatically disagree whether or not workers "choose" to work (and the sense in which the term "choose" is used).
Also, in a sense, dust mites do 'exploit' the human body. That would be the term that is used to describe the situation. Although, they aren't commodifying humans whereas humans do commodify animals for resources.
I meant choose in the sense that doing labor is not an involuntary biological process which can't be stopped, not in that, bigger picture, we don't have much of a choice about going to work.
You could say the mites exploit, or you could say they utilize a waste product, either way you put it, if they do me no harm, which is the case with most of the tiny creatures and microbes that live on and in my body, or in fact provide some helpful survival benefit, which is definitely the case for many intestinal microbes for example, I think the situation is fully morally and ethically acceptable.
"in the sense that doing labor is not an involuntary biological process which can't be stopped, not in that, bigger picture, we don't have much of a choice about going to work."
Ok, then I agree.
"which is the case with most of the tiny creatures and microbes that live on and in my body, or in fact provide some helpful survival benefit, which is definitely the case for many intestinal microbes for example, I think the situation is fully morally and ethically acceptable."
Yeah, I wouldn't say there is something unethical happening there. The symmetry breaker between humans/mites and humans/chickens has to do with the element of commodification and objectification humans apply to non-human animals. Both do "exploit" in the sense I used the term.
The issue I have is that even if these animals we use (like chickens, pigs, etc.) existed in a symbiotic relationship with us, I don't think vegans would co-sign using animal by-products (even when obtained without killing the animal) when alternatives readily exist that do not rely on farming or keeping animals in cages or in confinement.
Which leaves the question, for animals that really can't survive without human management, what quality of life is preferable to extinction? Some do just fine without us - pigs turn into feral hogs in only a generation, and in decades almost look like boar again. Some breeds of turkeys do pretty well too, the suburban neighborhood I grew up in had a band of what seemed to be either feral turkeys or wild and domesticated turkey hybrids that you'd see wandering the streets sometimes. They were car savvy and seemed to be doing just fine on their own. Dogs and cats clearly do fine. But I don't think most breeds of chickens stand a chance, and sheep overgrow wool too quickly. And I don't think most goats would even notice if humans vanished tomorrow.
I don’t follow. How can the hen suffer from exploitation if it can’t even detect the exploitation. If OP eats them, throws them away, composts them, or sneaks them into hen’s food it’s all the same to the hen. The hen can’t suffer more or less based on what OP does with the eggs.
I’m genuinely curious on the dynamics here on how it matters from the hen’s sentient perspective. Maybe the hen could vaguely connect the dots if she ate her own eggs vs having the, taken away?
"Does exploitation matter if the ones being exploited don't know if they are?"
Yes, it absolutely does matter.
"Does murder matter if the one murdered had no ability to foresee their murder or feel it at all because it was over so fast?"
Yes, it absolutely does matter.
"How is there exploitation in this case, then?"
The hen has next to no ability to consent to the conditions that are forced upon them by their owner.
"But their life is supposedly great, no?"
Their life may indeed be "great." Someone can still be exploited even if their life is "great." This is a problem of ownership at the baseline, which is akin to slavery. This is inarguable. *However*, you can attempt to argue permissibility for such a situation. It *would* seem that this relationship between the hen and their owner is quite good, so therefore we could attempt to make a strong argument that this is permissible. It is still exploitation, nevertheless, and an intrinsic moral stain.
Murder involves suffering in that life is removed. That gets existential, but we could say the chicken’s perception is changed in that they no longer perceive.
What does consent have to do with an animal that can’t consent. Shouldn’t the issue be whether they suffer?
“life may be great”. I still don’t get what happens to the egg has anything to do with the individual hen in OP scenario from the chicken’s perspective. It seems you’re focused on the fact that chickens through our choices have been made to be domesticated only. Ie it’s a prior wrong by other humans. I don’t see how using the egg for this individual could matter at all to the hen. OP isn’t talking about a plan to murder the chicken early to save on feed to meat yield.
The chicken is sentient per vegan definition. That means they can feel pain and therefore suffer right? So, what’s the difference between eating a domesticated hen’s egg (in the OP scenario) vs eating some product like a nut dropped off of a domesticated plant. Eating the egg/nut causes no suffering/pain. It seems that there’s no sentience involved at all? The OP scenario isn’t unique: are we allowed to use manure from animals without their consent, which they can’t give? I’m truly not getting the issue with no pain, suffering, death, or any other harm caused by eating the egg.
> What does consent have to do with an animal that can’t consent. Shouldn’t the issue be whether they suffer?
A being can suffer through rights violations. A being can even suffer unbeknownst to themselves.
In the case of the Titan submersible implosion incident, the occupants were arguably deceased before their biological mechanisms were able to communicate pain. They may have died before any part of their bodies understood what was happening at all. In this case, their right to life was violated, but they arguably felt no pain. Their lives suffered, but perhaps didn't understand anything that happened.
Over to the first sentence now, veganism is fundamentally about the rights of beings - and up that chain; from all beings, to all non-human animals, and all humans (who are also animals). We care about consent because it's a fundamental right of beings. If a being were to be born into a circumstance where they had no ability to live by their own volition at all, we'd find this to be problematic. There are several reasons why this would be problematic, but one reason is because they have no ability to consent to such conditions. A chicken *can* consent to a certain degree, but not do so satisfactorily. The chicken and the plant don't have the ability to give satisfactory consent, but the chicken is given a far more moral consideration compared to the plant. Most would go as far as to say that the plant ought not be given a right to consent.
So, with this in mind, we can move over to the main question you asked.
> So, what’s the difference between eating a domesticated hen’s egg (in the OP scenario) vs eating some product like a nut dropped off of a domesticated plant.
This is sidestepping the main issue in that ownership necessarily includes a violation of consent from the perspective of the hen.
If you want to talk about this specifically, then fine. A random, unfertilized egg carries a similar degree of moral weight to a nut. There's very little difference between the moral weight given to these two things. However, that's not the point of the issue at hand.
The point is about what happens one layer above this. In the domestic plant example, there is no sentient being who has their rights violated to be owned by another being. With the domestic chicken, there is necessarily exploitation because the owner of the chicken wants something, whatever that thing is, from the chicken, even if it's not an egg. The chicken being owned is inherently a problem. Now, again, one may argue permissibility after that point, but the fact still remains that the chicken's life is controlled by their owner to satisfy at least one wish of the owner.
If a race of hyper-advanced aliens that can traverse spacetime undetected exploited us by harvesting our blood in our sleep (without our detection), it would still be exploitation.
The philosophy of veganism is basically that the exploitation of animals for their products violates their consent and rights as sentient organisms.
Chickens cannot consent to being kept on a farm and having their eggs collected. Our current science is not advanced enough to know for sure all the ways in which a chicken might experience suffering. Even if OP thinks they are taking care of it to the best of their ability, it is still possible, perhaps probable, that they are inflicting suffering upon a chicken who cannot consent.
For the same reason that we would not keep a human on a farm to harvest their hair, if we did not know whether or not the human consented to it or if the human was suffering because of it, we do not consume animal products.
Vegans believe animals have rights as sentient beings. It is a minority position in the current world, but that does not mean it is incorrect.
It is also a fallacy to say that just because you are acting in a morally inconsistent way, that the moral system you follow is incorrect. I’ll end by saying that every (moral) vegan I’ve ever met seeks to reduce their reliance on animals suffering in all aspects of their life, not just diet, because veganism is a lifestyle and a frame of mind.
Genuine question: how can the consent of animals be violated when as far as we know, they do not have consent to be violated? Consent is a uniquely human construct, it seems improper to apply to animals. Any time you interact with an animal do you need to have philosophically contemplate whether you’re violating its consent in some way?
I would not agree that consent is necessarily a uniquely human concept. There are many examples in the wild of animals consenting or not consenting to play, mating, food sharing, etc.
I hate this definition because it acts as if humans aren't animals and acts as is any inter-species interactions are exploitation. animals interact and share resources all the time. animals take advantage of the labour and creations of animals all the time, in both harmful and harmless ways. Veganism as a philosophy has multiple different definitions and justifications behind it and why somebody chooses to take vegan actions comes from multiple diverse reasoning.
Veganism to me is optimizing harm reduction across ALL animals, including humans. Exploitation is a form of harm so it's a natural progression. But when the philosophy hits reality, I'm not pressed about the local beekeeper who distributes surplus honey. Animals can't consent to this arrangement but they can still benefit.
How is it exploitation? It's one haploid cell surrounded by excess nutrients. I think you're admitting you don't think that animals are capable of thought. This chicken literally has to lay eggs to get rid of excess nutrients. Would it be exploitation to throw the eggs she is already going to lay no matter my influence away?
It's exploitation because you're treating the animal as a resource.
I would disagree. Just because you are using something the animal is leaving behind doesn't automatically mean the relationship is exploitative in nature.
If I cut my fingernails and a janitor finds them and turns them into a necklace, I haven't been exploited by the janitor.
Now if the janitor decides to start encouraging me to do things to grow my nails faster so that he would have more to work with in the future, then an explotative relationship would be forming, but absent that, it's just him using stuff that I have discarded.
This is an amazingly weird example. That’s not criticism.
Def watch your fingernails around campus custodial staff.
This is much better than my example of me making someone a meal and offering it to me lol. Wouldn't be surprised if this person responds to my example but not yours seeing that they still haven't responded to yours.
I mean if you consider her love a resource, sure. the eggs are just something that appear that I really cannot control. chickens just do that.
No hens were commercially bred to overproduce eggs which is part of why it’s important to feed them back to her. In the wild hens only lay about an egg a month, similar to a human’s monthly cycle. Hens today that have been bred to overproduce lose lots and lots of nutrients especially calcium to continuously produce eggs and it’s important to feed them back to them so they can reabsorb a lot of those lost nutrients. But you’re too busy thinking about yourself and your desires because you can’t look past viewing her as a resource
brother i only have one hen. I guarantee you if fed them back she'd be eating too much calcium. I cook her food every day measuring out macronutrients like calcium
You could feed her less then why would u complain about that
I'm so confused by your logic. You're using "the eggs need to be fed back to her for proper nutrients" as a moral reason why eating them instead is bad, but then when it turns out the chicken already gets the proper nutrients, you say "feed her less then".
If the hen is getting all the needed nutrients already without eating her own eggs, then can you explain why the eggs being eaten is morally worse than just throwing them away?
[removed]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
Ok wait, so it's more ethical to start feeding her less than once a day than to just use the eggs rather than throwing them away?
Once again, stop purposefully misunderstanding and twisting everyone’s replies you are so obviously acting in bath faith. You know I didn’t mean feed her less often just less calories and less calcium because you’d be replacing it with the eggs her body needs. That is only if you’re even worried about her having “too many nutrients” like you said. It’s so obvious how malicious you’re being here
With how modern hens are bred to mass produce eggs, less calcium could lead to her being eggs bound, which is painful and potentially lethal.
"I didn't say feed her less,, I said less calories"
What???
If you looked into the issue with your hens best health in mind, you would have learned that letting her lay all these eggs for you to eat is not the vegan option. This "too much calcium" is just lazy non-logic excuses.
You can’t control how many eggs a hen produces. It’s a biological process, and isn’t something the hen or human chooses. The only way to make this hen produce less eggs is to abuse them by feeding them less food or to euthanize it.
>It’s a biological process
Its an unnatural genetic problem caused by humans. There is currently medical treatment avaliable for it that is used to improve the lives of hens that would be otherwise suffering due to their egg laying.
Why are you lying?
I agree! she is definitely a product of human intervention. I am not going to breed her. but she just produces so many eggs as long as i keep her healthy
Unless the hen is experiencing detrimental health caused by the egg laying, then this would be unnecessary. Laying an egg every day is not out of the realm of normal for a hen of this breed. If she’s healthy, has good plumage, good energy, appetite, etc then she’s not actively suffering from the egg laying.
To be fair, there are treatments (implants and injections) that you can give birds to reduce their egg-laying.
Egg-laying is likely very stressfull for the bird considering how much they've been bred to lay. If someone is going to have a rescue hen and eat their eggs, I would hope that they would first take measures to reduce their egg laying rather than just allow their selectively bred biology to produce hundreds per year. After that if there is the occasional egg... sure eat it if it's going to go to waste anyway.
The amount of mental gymnastics here rivals that which we see in the Olympics. Better to give a hen some sort of chemical to stop her body from its natural process than to excess eggs that would go to waste? Are you even listening to yourself? If it's LL about consent then how the fuck Is a chicken gonna consent to hormone treatment ?
That’s not true, the laying of extra eggs was the cause of domestication, not a result. It’s an evolutionary trait from their wild ancestors the Red Jungle Fowl, which still exists in the wild. It’s thought that they developed this ability to capitalize on the reproductive behavior of the bamboo stands they live around.
Even wild Red Jungle Fowl can lay up to an egg a day.
Wild chickens will lay an egg a day until there is a large enough clutch for her to sit on and hatch. If I take away an egg every day, she will continue to lay.
The only birds that lay only one egg in such a large timeframe are those that only incubate one egg at a time. Birds always lay clutches. Always. And they are usually only a day or few apart
They only lay at that rate until they fill their nest they’re not continuously laying nest fulls of eggs all year
And they are also not laying one egg a month like you said
[removed]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
Definition of exploitation includes: the action of making use of and benefitting from resources. It isn't just the first one, the two are often used alongside one another.
While dictionaries can be helpful references, I feel like this completely flattens the discussion in question here.
It feels like the following line of reasoning:
Manipulation is bad.
We can define "manipulation" as "forcing someone into any state or action".
If I hear the phrase, "imagine a pink elephant" I cannot help but imagine one.
Therefore, anyone who utters this phrase to me forces that image into my mind, which is manipulation, which is bad.
Replace "manipulation" with "exploitation" and insert the details about the chicken and you have a practically identical and equally absurd syllogism.
The key issue is that a term is given an overly broad definition and ethical inferences are made without any consideration of actual harm in the setting in question. Imo clearly OP isn't incurring the kind of harm that is usually associated with "exploitation", so to even invoke that word in this conversation is to muddy the water.
What exactly do you mean by "exploitation" here? Do you have a clear definition? I'm very confused about how the situation as described is a form of exploitation and I really would like to understand what you mean here
Honestly, if egg and milk come from well cared animal are not vegan, than nothing is vegan. As in modern agriculture, we will kill everything in the filed to growth the stuff we want to grow so everything is some kind of "animal products". And for egg and milk you technically have no living thing in it
Stop you're making too much sense. Those hens did not sign the consent agreement, so you best leave the eggs to rot . No living thing, and that includes plants, can "consent" to being destroyed or consumed. So what does one do? Die as soon as your 'consenting' mother stops lactating?
Mostly agree but cows don't produce milk unless they just gave birth. A happy healthy cow isn't producing milk unless you force it to give birth frequently (and that's usually via artificial insemination, akin to rape)
This is what I never understand about the ethical standpoint of total veganism in every situation because in my view this is not exploitation. It’s mutual benefit. You could argue that you exploit plants by taking their fruit. And then argue that of course it’s not the same with plants because they cannot feel. But I still don’t get it because the chicken in this situation is happy. In every single sense of the word. And it doesn’t have the sapient desire for autonomy and freedom of choice; as long as its physical and mental/entertainment needs are met - including not having its actual choices restricted consistently, like where and when it wants to roost, eat, forage etc. - then it is not unhappy. Exploitation without causing direct harm doesn’t matter. It doesn’t exist. The chicken is well and you’re getting extra food out of it. That’s good
I am going to assume OP is describing the situation 100% accurately.
Assuming this, this is not exploitation. The hen lays them no matter what OP does and refuses to eat less. How is OP exploiting the hen? OP is doing nothing to the hen to make her lay the eggs.
And because they will rot even if fertilised, OP is not stopping another life (a chick) from coming into existence so they are not exploiting in that way either.
If I made you a meal and you accepted it would you be exploiting me? Of course not.
I'm not vegan so I won't say they are or are not vegan, but they are clearly not exploitation.
Unless your exclusively growing your own food the capitalist death machine exploits animals on your behalf to deliver your "guilt free" food to you. Eating eggs from a chicken you spoil and care for is far more ethical than eating anything vegan produced buy nestle.
Exploitation and oppression outside of your control is not a valid justification for exploitation and oppression within your control.
Exactly correct, well said.
What aspects in your mind are exploitive or cruel in keeping ethically raised hens to be reered for eggs?
Not trying to be sparky but would value insight into this perspective.
No exploitation and commodification is not vegan. Viewing animals as resources is not vegan. Feed her own eggs back to her as is natural and good for them
Feeding her her own eggs will actually cause her to start breaking and eating fresh eggs so... no. It's not naturally for chickens to eat their own eggs and causes problems later on. I raised chickens for most of my life. This is hardly exploitation and really just seems like you attempting to be morally superior to an illogical fault. Should we start feeding adult cows milk? No. They will get sick.
You can give the contents and shell of an egg that makes it less likely to associate it with unbroken eggs. Chickens lay too many eggs, which is unnatural, so they sometimes eat them naturally. "Natural" doesn't automatically equal "good". It's exploitation by definition. Pretty logical. Milk isn't eggs, that's a different matter, adult cows are lactose intolerant, chickens have no such issue with eggs.
Right, she's not exploited, commodified, or used for resources. I feed her well. Feeding her her eggs back would be abusive because I'd be force feeding her excessive calcium.
Yes it is. Exploiting someone “nicely” is still exploitation. Do you not think hens used to all be “backyard chickens”? How did we get from there to industrial farming? Because we accepted it as ok to view them as resources and exploiting them “nicely” allowed us to justify cruel treatment. Taking her eggs that don’t belong to you when you do not need to is still exploitation even if you don’t think that’s your intention and even if you don’t think you’re causing harm. We will not liberate animals until we stop viewing them as resources, as commodities.
I would not consider this relationship exploitative.
The definition of exploitation as it relates to unfair treatment is "the act of using someone or something unfairly for your own advantage".
The relationship described by OP does not fit this definition. The hen in question perhaps receives more benefits than OP is in this relationship. She's being fed, sheltered, and taken care of while the only tangible benefit OP receives is a few eggs that would've been laid anyways regardless of OP's involvement.
The hen does not, according to OP's description, appear to be mistreated or unfairly taken advantage of in this relationship.
Therefore, this does not qualify as an exploitative relationship.
Damn I guess I'm getting exploited when I feed her too 😭😭😭 My one hen I ended up with is not abused, dude. I cook her food every day! She is not some factory farmed animal. Stop defaulting to stuff that only applies to abused animals
You are being abused. You feed her fine food, protect her, probably soothe her in ways she enjoys and all you get is one crappy egg. She should be ashamed.
What does it matter what hens used to be? The hen in question is a modern-day chicken. Pretending it’s a distant ancestor of itself is of no benefit to the chicken.
I think you missed my point. My point was that prior to industrial animal agriculture, all hens were “backyard chickens” and that us being ok with viewing them as commodities then, led us as a society to justify what we do to them today which obviously involves much more suffering
OP clearly does not view her chicken as a commodity. The chicken is clearly very loved.
layer feed is full of calcium
Without getting too philosophical, it depends on whether you’re talking about veganism from a deontological perspective or a consequentialist perspective.
The former views abstaining from animal products as an absolute rule, regardless of how much harm they cause. Whereas the latter views abstaining from animal products as a general rule to help reduce harm and suffering to animals, but there are scenarios where breaking the rule is fine if it causes no harm.
I am a consequentialist vegan, so I think the situation you’ve described sounds ethically justifiable if the chicken has a long happy life and no harm is being caused.
However, there is an argument to be made that normalising the idea that animal products are food will encourage others to buy/produce these products in unethical ways, so maybe it is better in the long run to avoid them completely… But I guess this argument is only feasible if you’re letting others know you eat eggs.
Either way, I agree that in principle using animal products in ways that don’t cause any harm to animals at all isn’t an issue. ✌️
I'd not heard of this particular split of consequentialist vs deontological veganism. I'm definitely more in the consequentialist camp but didn't understand why I didn't agree with so many fellow vegans on certain points until now. My husband is also a philosophy nerd and extremely pragmatic 99% vegan and he's going to be excited to talk about this with me, so, thank you! Do you have any reading material to suggest if I want to learn more about these frameworks?
I didn’t realise there was a split either until I started really diving into moral philosophy! And yeah I was the same, I suddenly realised why there’s so much vegan in-fighting haha
That’s cool that you can discuss this with your husband too! I’m glad I was able to help with this realisation ✌️
When it comes to reading material, I’m not sure what to recommend as I don’t know how deep you want to dive into the philosophy and I’ve not read that many actual books on the topic… I mainly learned about moral philosophy from listening to Peter Singer lectures and debates on Youtube and pop philosophy channels like Rationality Rules and Alex O Connor!
So I guess I’d recommend watching videos like that. If you do want a book, then the first one that comes to mind is The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, which is a book about using science and reason to help us with consequentialist ethical decisions. ✌️
Does the chicken not eat any of their own eggs? I have read and heard that is normal, common, for them to eat their own eggs. You could try that
Eating their own eggs is not really normal healthy chicken behavior.
Yes they will eat them if you crush the eggs and feed them, because chickens will eat anything, but hens that have room to roam and choose appropriate secluded nest spots do not eat their own eggs.
It’s a bad habit that happens sometimes when chickens are confined in a coop, arguing over the same nest eggs will get broken and then they eat them, but this behavior is really uncommon in chickens if not confined.
Chicken will eat frogs, big spiders, and all sorts of things.
Yes I am aware that birds eat those creatures. I don’t know how that’s relevant to my comment, though?
if I fed her her own eggs she'd have way too much calcium. rhasy why I mentioned feeding her well. feeding eggs back is common when you have multiple hens but with a single one I can keep her healthy past what nature ever intended. she just shits out eggs because it takes no effort!!!
[removed]
You cannot control a hen’s output of eggs. As of right now, it’s something that just happens. The only way to reduce this is to either a) feed the chicken so little food that it physically cannot produce eggs or b) kill it.
Yes, people intentionally bred hens to produce eggs more frequently than their wild counterparts. But, this person didn’t breed this specific animal, didnt choose to breed this animal to produce eggs, and doesn’t work on a factory farm. This is a pet chicken who is the same breed as egg laying hens.
The hen laying eggs every single day really is just a thing that happens every day.
Well that’s not true, there are treatments that can halt egg-laying. I’m not saying they’re very accesible or cheap necessarily, but you’re wrong in saying those are the only 2 ways to reduce the amount of eggs they lay. There’s absolutely hormonal treatments for it.
Leaving hte eggs in the nest, or gettign "Fake" eggs to put in the nest has been shown to decrease the output of eggs, you just need to watch for "broody" behaviour and remove the eggs for a while if it shows.
Never technically vegan depending on how exploitation is defined. But if they're not bought from breeders directly (unethical selective breeding for more eggs) and they're rescues or something else that's ethically sound then it's really not an issue. As long as you can provide them a good quality of life with love, other hen friends, good nutrition, good hygiene, good medical care, and enough living space then there's not an issue in my eyes. If the hen showed signs of distress then it'd be a different answer but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't like how transactional your last sentence sounds, but that's quite nitpicky and as long as you'd treat her the same if she stopped laying eggs or suddenly got defensive over them (so you stopped taking them) then I still see no issue.
I am fully with you. I got three girls unexpectedly and they are family, but from time to time they produce an excess of eggs. I give my girls back 1 egg 3x weekly per girl (if I give them more they get some real funky turds), I even give some to my dogs, and freeze some for later feeding. I’m going to take the leftovers since it does no harm, and I’ve definitely spent many thousands of dollars and hours on the girls. No harm to anyone, and 3 spoiled chickens that don’t seem to care.
I've been in the same situation with four ducks that we'd rescued. I wouldn't eat the eggs, it's easier for me to have a hard line, but I did give them away if we ended up with a bunch. We had 3-6 eggs to deal with every single day and it adds up fast when you don't eat them yourself. The ducks wouldn't eat them if we left them (we tried). And letting them go broody didn't seem great for them either.
It sounds like she is laying an excessive amount of eggs. For most pet animals something like this would be considered a medical condition and the owner would be looking into treatment options to stop or reduce the problem for the animal.
It seems like the view that chickens are for your delicious breakfast has caused people to not even consider that the chicken should not be laying this many eggs if you are caring for its well being first and foremost
I think this is the only ethical way to eat eggs. She's a well loved pet and she produces the eggs no matter what, since they're there why not eat them? Would it be better to just throw them away? I don't think so. You may as well eat them instead of disposing of them.
If a typical vegan found out after the fact that you fed them with food made with some of these eggs, would they be upset?
I think eating them would be the ethical thing to do. I'm vegan, and I would eat an egg that my rescue chicken laid. Why waste it? Eggs have b12, protein, and nothing had to die for you to get them.
Look if you’re going to insist on continuing to consume those globs of cholesterol and fat by all means, but no it’s not vegan
The only 2 choices are really to eat them or feed them to the hen. Throwing them away seems more unethical than eating them.
I can’t possibly in my head come up with a reason that this would be considered exploitation, as others have. If the hen did not lay eggs, you’d still be raising it, I assume. So it just seems like a mutually beneficial relationship with a pet. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Unless someone is going to argue that the hen didn’t consent to this relationship, which is beyond where I’d be willing to take this debate, personally.
[removed]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
Wild Gallus sp do not lay a lot of eggs under any conditions. The only wild Gallus sp are junglefowl that lay from 2 to 10 eggs per year.
Honestly, if egg and milk come from well cared animal are not vegan, than nothing is vegan. As in modern agriculture, we will kill everything in the filed to growth the stuff we want to grow so everything is some kind of "animal products". And for egg and milk you technically have no living thing in it
Is the hen a rescue? Or did you get the hen for the purpose of taking her eggs?
If the hen is a rescue and you're treating her with the love and care you would give your own child, and she's producing the eggs anyway then there's nothing unethical about eating them.
If I can post a comment addendum the mods can see before it gets approved she usually doesn't even lay a single egg a day but associates it with me so much she goes and will ruff up her nest like she's about to that is why I mentioned the daily routine 😭 Her record was 4 days in a row before I realized I was probably giving her too much calcium if she was able to make eggs THAT quickly
Laying eggs multiple days in a row does not mean you're giving her too much calcium. It's just a sign that she had an appropriate amount of nutrients and calcium to produce them. You can't really give them too much calcium. It either just goes straight through their digestive system into fecal matter or ends up as extra calcium deposits on the shell of the egg.
And I do hope she isn't your only chicken. Chickens need other chickens to be truly happy and healthy. Their very social creatures, and without companionship, they can become depressed and even die.
For those who are opposed to the consumption of eggs from a pet animal as vegan AND who keep animals in captivity, please read this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/QiV4SxN8Uf
Final Conclusion from the link:
The vegan rejection of egg consumption, grounded in opposition to the captivity-based use of animals, logically requires the rejection of keeping animals in captivity for any benefit—including companionship, comfort, entertainment, convenience, or labor/service. To do otherwise is to inconsistently apply the very ethical framework that underpins veganism.
If eating a wild
deer(edit: animal) is not vegan, then captive vs non-captive is not part of the definition of veganism. If captive vs non-captive is not part of the definition of veganism, then the principals that apply to captive animals also apply to non-captive animals.If benefitting from the presence of a captive animal is not vegan, and the principals that apply to captive animals also apply to non-captive animals, then benefitting from the presence of wild animals is also not vegan.
That means logically, per your argument, bird feeders, animal photography, wild pollinators interacting with crop flowers, bats eating mosquitos that bother us... none of these things are vegan.
I don’t think it’s fair to view sanctuary and companionship for an animal as the same as viewing them as a resource. You can do the same with humans; adopt/rescue, provide sanctuary to, and be a caregiver for I mean. It’s about reframing our relationship with animals and rescue to not be about ownership but it’s not exploitation to do all those things for a non human animal
The captivity of nonhuman animals on an individual basis is highly selective and conditioned on the animal’s perceived ability to provide entertainment, comfort, companionship, convenience, and/or labor/services.
Someone carefully selecting a chicken for adoption on basis of her ability to produce eggs is no different than someone carefully selecting a dog for adoption on basis of his ability to provide entertainment, comfort, companionship, convenience, and/or labor/services.
Chickens literally die all the time from egg over production.
Can you think of a human selection criteria for dogs that regularly cause death?
This is very a very different issue from selecting based on a good trait.
Brachycephaly results in premature death and a lifetime of suffering in dogs
In the context of a conversation where you've taken the view that utilising an animal's waste products is always exploitation, it's hard to see how most forms of pet ownership wouldn't be.
Take cats, for example. Letting one's cat roam outdoors means letting it kill a bunch of wildlife, which is the reason most people who keep their cats indoors choose to do so. That's not about what the cat wants: it's about letting the owner double-dip into feeling good about owning / rescuing a cat and/or the benefits that brings, and feeling good about protecting the environment from a predator. The cat wouldn't choose to be imprisoned indoors Would that be exploitation, in your view? Why or why not?
The outdoor cat population is far too high and regardless of their impact on local wildlife, focusing on the cat’s wellbeing, it’s far better for them to be inside cats. Far far safer. And I find people tend to do the opposite in terms of “double dipping” as you put it, especially vegans. Deciding that it’s best to let their cat roam and hunt so they don’t have to carry the guilt of their cat needing meat to survive (yes I’m aware preliminary research for well planned supervised and properly supplemented plant based diets for cats is promising but I personally don’t recommend people try to do it themselves at this stage) but disregarding the impact on wildlife and the dangers to their cat and the fact that their cat is still eating animals so the outcome really is the same.
And it’s less about “want” and more about prioritizing wellbeing overall. I’m sure cats and dogs don’t necessarily want to be spayed or neutered but ultimately it’s for the best for their wellbeing and the overpopulation.
I mostly agree, but as you point out: you're talking about wellbeing here, not exploitation. It still involves a human making a decision for an animal about what's best for it, regardless of what it would choose for itself - and my argument would be that for the most part, this is done because of what the human is getting out of the arrangement.
I think you, yourself, are consistently making the wellbeing argument here. Others aren't. When the argument becomes "eating eggs is bad because exploitation is categorically bad" rather than "not medicating your chicken so that it doesn't lay eggs may be causing your chicken harm", the "pets are exploitation" argument becomes relevant.
[removed]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #2:
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
Obviously. It's almost as if hens lay eggs. If it's a well looked after, free range hen then it'd be absolutely ridiculous to not eat the eggs. Like, they're unfertilised anyway. They'll rot if left uneaten.
This is vegan to me - my interpretation is that any relationship we have with animals should be mutualistic symbiotic ones, this definitely falls into that category
You could try feeding them back to her? If she refuses, I suppose you can eat them yourself or see what else you could use them for that wouldn’t be wasteful.
Technically it isn't vegan, since veganism implies not consuming anything from animals, but it isn't animal abuse, since you do nothing harmful to her
I agree with the comments saying that this is a moral reasoning, not necessarily a vegan issue. The commonly understood definition of vegan is not to use any animal products.
So while if you don't use animal products as a moral stance, you could argue that it is okay to use byproducts of well cared for animals, I don't believe it necessarily falls in the realm of vegan.
By that definition, meaning one of better to use versus waste, many animal byproducts could be seen as vegan if they would be thrown out otherwise.
The other argument I have seen made is that hens naturally would not lay this many eggs and have been modified or bred to produce them at the rate we currently have them. There have also been studies done that show that the current species of chickens that are bred to lay daily or even weekly have been exceedingly detrimental to their health.
My daughter counts herself as vegetarian because she doesn't use anything that an animal had to die for. Eggs and dairy are fine for her, but leather and the meat are not okay.
Vegan is just word to describe a set of beliefs with alot of overlap. It has to be a set, and not a singular belief, because everyone interprets words differently. Ultimately every name for something works this way
I had a flatmate who was vegan, but still ate eggs that came from her family farm. She's allowed to do this because Scott pilgrim is a fictional story, and there aren't actually any vegan police that are out there, ready to take the word away from her if she fails to uphold certain restrictions. The purpose of the word vegan is to easily communicate your values and lifestyles to another person, and for her, vegan is more effective at doing this than non-vegan, because she still broadly fell into that category, minus one (ultimately pedantic) exception
Define "vegan".
I can guarantee you that no chicken cares about whether or not they are exploited.
A lot of vegans are vegan because they’re simply grossed out by eating animal products. Vegan doesn’t mean you necessarily care about the animals wellbeing. As someone who has been vegetarian since childhood I’m always having people try to debate me on the ethics of the diet. My response is “I’m just grossed out by putting dead bodies in my mouth.” I do care about animals wellbeing but it has nothing to do with my diet. For example if someone said “you have to eat this one steak or I’ll kill 10 cows” I still would not eat the steak because I’m repulsed by it.
Most vegans will not be overly bothered by your interpretation of this even if they personally do not choose to consume said eggs. I’m not sure I fully agree with you, but I see where you’re coming from. I think things change dramatically for me if you are lighting the coop to force egg production in the winter as that is linked to ovarian cancer.
The PETA-brained set will see pet abduction specifically for euthanasia as preferable to a comfortable life because they equate pets with human slavery and have no room in their tiny, closed minds for nuance.
I find this topic fascinating. I agree animal suffering is something I hate. That being said I always wondered if being vegan meant strictly no Meat or animal products, or that an animal didn’t suffer. Like in this case the consumption of a happy chickens eggs. If this is the case, would a vegan coming across a wild animal in the bush who has just died find it acceptable to eat that animal? The animal was feee range and not subject to mistreatment and lived its life in the way it was intended.
I gave this argument in another thread about honey, I'll just present it here since it is relevant. I didn't get an answer there, let's see if someone wants to answer it here.
P1: Veganism rejects the commodity status of animals/their exploitation for human ends.
P2: Eggs comes from animals (chickens) that are utilized as commodities/exploited for resources they produce.
C: Therefore, veganism rejects eggs.
Which premise(s) do you reject?
For me P2 makes no sense to use as an argument. It is too general. P2 is more specifically, eggs come from animals and certain industries and/or people utilize them as commodities or exploitation. There are two arguments here. The simple one: Any non-plant is always non-vegan, which is a very easy definition but focuses only on food and no other things, or the other one; this exploitation is the key issue, not "eggs comes from animals and they produce resources". The second one applies to more than just food, but also makes the details much muddier
To be clear: I don't think this is vegan, but I don't think the argument held here makes sense if carried to it's logical conclusion, otherwise having any pets, using any metal or electricity are also non-vegan. unless you want to argue it's okay if it's animals from long ago or which aren't alive today. In which case we probably just disagree fundamentally.
Thanks for responding.
"For me P2 makes no sense to use as an argument. It is too general. P2 is more specifically, eggs come from animals and certain industries and/or people utilize them as commodities or exploitation"
Well, it is the minor premise, it is taking from the larger statement and making a specific claim. You are right that it, in itself, is also a general claim but in the context of the syllogism, it is the minor premise.
Put differently, it is saying the following: P1) the set "status of animals as commodities to be exploited for human ends" is not contained within the set "veganism". P2) The set "eggs" are contained within the set "products generated from exploitation of animals/the commodification of animals". C) Therefore, the set "permissibility to use eggs" is not contained within the set "veganism".
However, I don't see how the premise being a general statement about where eggs come from (which I don't think you disagree with the fact that eggs come from chickens which are utilized by humans as products and exploited for the resources they produce) makes it untrue. Presumably, we can agree to the truthfulness of the statement regardless of how general it is, since it is true that eggs come from these such practices.
"The simple one: Any non-plant is always non-vegan, which is a very easy definition but focuses only on food and no other things"
Well, that's not necessarily true nor was that stated directly by the argument. For example, fungi are vegan foods which are non-plants.
"this exploitation is the key issue, not "eggs comes from animals and they produce resources"."
Exploitation here is taken to also refer to the other definition: the action of making use of and benefitting from resources.
"I don't think the argument held here makes sense if carried to it's logical conclusion, otherwise having any pets, using any metal or electricity are also non-vegan."
Well, yes. Strictly speaking, yes. Those things you mentioned all rely on animal exploitation, they aren't strictly speaking vegan. The other arm of the vegan definition involves practicality and possibility. So, it is quite practical to cut out animal products from your grocery list, but it isn't as practical to stop using technologies that use animal by-products or roads that rely on animals being expelled or killed to exist.
"unless you want to argue it's okay if it's animals from long ago or which aren't alive today. "
No, I don't think the time period matters. The animals that were forcibly expelled or killed to clear space for us to build our cities mean that all cities built are not vegan. The difference here is that going totally off-grid to achieve "true veganism" is not practical for most people, so they do what they can. Holding vegans to this "true" version of veganism is simply a nirvana fallacy and/or a no true scotsman (i.e. no "true" vegan lives in cities or uses technologies since they all rely on animal death/exploitation). Not saying you are doing that, just that that's how these conversations usually run. Most people do what they can to achieve their ethics, that doesn't mean they are "perfect" at all.
All the argument shows has to do with eggs not being vegan. You are right that we can transfer other things in place of eggs to show how they aren't vegan, and you would be right. Computer chips, LCD screens, roads, skyscrapers, airplanes, and so on. It's easier to not own chickens and take/use their eggs than it is to avoid roads or buildings, though.
If you think it's a fair deal:
- You provide, protection, warmth, food, possibly access to healthcare (vet.s if she got sick)
- And she gives you eggs; if the eggs aren't fertilized, then it's entirely out of the question that this is any form of exploitation - however;
Naturally, eggs are supposed to be fertilized, are you restricting the hen in this regard? but in the same sense, if not for you, she might be dead; so some would consider it a worthy tradeoff
A good tradeoff, by your definition, is not exploitation, by your definition;
[and to be fair a lot of vegans seem to have lost the plot and have a knee-jerk reaction; calling something 'exploitation' requires other conditions to be met except for 'just from an animal']
Eggs from a rescue hen who's well taken care of and not slaughtered at any point, don't actually go against our morals (although whether or not it counts as vegan depends on who you ask), but the fact that your hen wasn't a rescue means you contributed to the supply and demand of animal agriculture, which makes both owning that animal and eating her eggs not vegan.
Thank you for giving her such a good life, though. I personally contribute to more animal agriculture than you do, even though my diet is vegan, because my cat's diet isn't. None of us are perfect.
Hi, I once visited a farm sanctuary and the vet there explained how modern laying hens were bred to over produce eggs and that causes a lot of health problems because it requires a lot of resources from the hen’s bodies.
The vet said that the reason why they feed the hens their own eggs is so that they can recover all the calcium they lose when producing them. I also remember her saying something like they prepare them in a special way but I don’t remember.
If I were you and wanted to be sure that I’m doing the most ethical thing, I’d consult with a vet who doesn’t see hens as an object or product. So maybe you could reach out to some farm sanctuary and ask to talk with their vet?
I can help you find the contact info if you want :)
Did you get her in the hopes of eating her eggs? Did you want to rescue a chicken and then just had way too many eggs? Because you eat eggs at home, do you then make exceptions when eating out or at friends.
That’s what will make the difference between vegan or not.
In my opinion, you could give the eggs to non vegans and that would reduce more suffering than you eating the eggs.
I dunno. It’s by definition an animal product, so in the strictest sense it’s not vegan (to the best of my understanding). But I see your ethical take on this. There’s literally no harm done to a sentient animal in this circumstance. I wouldn’t call it vegan, but I wouldn’t call it unethical either.
I like this post! It gave me some things to consider!
im of the belief that the act of eating eggs is and of itself not immoral- it's how we, as a society, acquire them that is. a bird that is well cared for and (with the current state of domestic animal breeding) rescue-adjacent is fine in my books. i think most vegans would be fine with this also. any that aren't are probably of the more annoying variety, anyways...
It's not unethical, but it also isn't defined as vegan. Food morals and ethics don't always fall in a linear black and white categories. For example, I am vegetarian, but if I order a meatless entree at a restaurant and I am served meat by mistake, I feel the ethical thing to do is to eat it, because I feel like throwing it away is wasteful and worse.
Here's a question, are you Vegan? Or are you just making up this scenario to find some gotcha against veganism?
It's not a gotcha. It's still immoral, despite seemingly being a "permissible" situation. This isn't a novel hypothetical by any stretch.
The point is that people will make all sorts of hypothetical scenarios, edge cases, thought experiments...even elaborate philosophical arguments but behind all that is one very simple straightforward thing... dishonesty. They just want to escape the self responsibility and will do all sorts of mental gymnastics. Your cat should be vegan or not(or whether you should pet her in the first place) are relevant questions but they come after the owner is vegan. That's what I'm trying to confirm if the OP is genuine or not
I have no reason to doubt their credibility, nor do I necessarily want to. What they're doing is inherently immoral, but potentially, arguably permissible. It's a good learning hypothetical for non-vegans and vegans alike.
Regardless of whether the context is permissible, it's not a context we ought to be striving for in the long-term and there's a very important reason why - it all still boils down to power dynamics and consent.
Give the eggs to wild animals? As the end of the day I don't think we as a species should eat them when we are the reason they lay so many in the first place. Without playing the slavery card comparison, I don't think it's ok to benefit from something bad caused by us even if it's from a place of love.
As long as the animal is given freedom of movement I think it is fine. But if it lives in an enclosed space then it is a slave. Animal is incapable of consenting to being your pet. Closest thing you can get to consent is having it not leave you or come back to you even when it is free to leave.
Vegan, no. Ethical, debatable. It’s not something I’d do. I’d more likely save some eggs to feed her/mix into her feed, then use the rest to stop friends and family from buying eggs from the store. I don’t think people care much if you eat the eggs but I wouldn’t call it veganism.
Eggs are an animal product, so by definition, they can't be considered vegan. Just because vegans are ethical towards animals doesn't mean being ethical is automatically vegan. Being ethical is just being a good person. I hope your chicken enjoys a long and happy life with you.
Vegans who eschew eggs do so for the conditions factory farming cause for chickens. In the case you describe that’s not applicable at all. Strikes me you need to decide the most ethical solution for these eggs. I’d find a destitute family & give them the eggs.
The definition of vegan: a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products.
It doesn’t matter how well you treat the chicken, eggs are not vegan. 🤦♂️
I always thought this, not vegan or vegetarian but i feel that the eggs i receive from my pet chickens that are cared for amazingly are not any form of “exploitation”. Definitely not the same as store bought eggs.
Any justifications for your ownership of your pet chickens is necessarily immoral. You may not even want the eggs, but use them anyway because you don't want them to be wasted. That's all well and fine, but the issue of exploitation lies with whatever the reasons are for owning the chickens in the first place.
You're getting something out of owning them and they are unable to satisfactorily provide consent to the partnership/relationship.
You are also well within your right to argue permissibility in this case. Perhaps the chickens were rescued and this situation is seemingly the best possible decision for their lives. However, this is all based upon a violation of the chickens' right to consent and that's what's important to understand.
I'm still against raising chickens for eggs because of how hatcheries immediately grind up the male baby chicks.
Enjoy those eggs.
Since the developed world overcame puritanism, and religion in general, it has sought to adhere to ideologies that allow it to feel morally superior, where veganism is extremely functional.
It's not vegan even if you think it's harmless. I don't see a moral issue with wearing a sweater made out of a rescue dog's fur obtained through brushing, but that's not the same as calling it vegan.
I need more info on one part. Do you think she feels like laying the egg is a way to get food? Almost like she’s trading you food for food? If so, I would consider that vegan.
You do you but I do say get your chicken a friend. They are social creatures and need a flock! Thank you for taking care of and respecting our chicken friends🐓
Are pearls vegan? Is alpaca wool vegan? Is honey vegan? Is moulted snake skin vegan? Is coffee skat vegan? Are fallen antlers vegan? is yak urine vegan? ... etc.
Are eggs vegan? Is Rhetoric
Veganism doesn't need to be a performance for randos online. It's an ethical obligation based in rationalization. You're not doing anything wrong
You really don’t need permission. Listen to your gut.
Reddit should not be the arbiter of what you eat.
Enjoy your eggs 🥚😋
I agree with you. It`s akin to making wool shawls or whatever from your dog`s shedded fur. It`s a byproduct of their existence
What do you think about an implant that your vet can give her to stop or greatly reduce her egg-laying?
This could benefit her from a health and comfort perspective, but of course, it means you won't have eggs to eat.
It’s an interesting question. It’s obviously not vegan by definition but I don’t think it’s particularly unethical
By all official definitions of vegan, the egg is an animal byproduct and would not be considered vegan if eaten.
The fact that you are keeping a hen, far from her peers, without males of her species, it's already non vegan
Veganism requires a plant based diet, thus you are wrong
Have you tried leaving the eggs and seeing if she lays less? If you haven’t tried this I am suspicious.