Ethical veganism - on my understanding of it, at least - seems to rest on just a couple of ethical claims. Humans should not cause harm and suffering to other animals as much as possible and humans should reject the ownership of other animals. I'm not sure there is much more to it (unless you believe that say animal rights are entailed within veganism, but I'm not sure that is right). I have read that veganism is also a matter of justice, but I'm not as clear what that means. Presumably, the justice sought is already captured in the first two principles above?
Anyways, my question is about the property status concern. It seems to me that this is really a consequence of the harm and suffering principle. If an organism is able to feel pain and to suffer then we should believe it is best not to cause harm and suffering. The problem with ownership is that owners are not bound to keep their animals from experiencing such, as is the case for farmed animals. If farmed animals for example did not experience pain and could not be in such affective states, we would not really be concerned with how they are treated. And if we were not concerned with how they are treated, then ownership would not be an issue. We already believe this in regards to palnts and fungi.
Is there really anything more to the property status claim not apparent to me, or is the central (and probably really the only) concern and hence reason for ethical veganism the desire to reduce/eliminate pain and suffering of other animals?
Veganism and the property status of animals
-
Graeme M
- Newbie
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:49 pm
- Diet: Vegan
-
brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Veganism and the property status of animals
I don't think ownership is necessarily part of it, because ownership is a meaningless human construct. I don't think anti-ownership has any part of the definition of veganism.
The question is whether some people, when considered to own animals, will do more harm as a consequence. Other people will take "ownership" as a responsibility to protect, so it probably depends on the person.
On average I would say it does harm because of how most people treat ownership and property, so if you want to appeal to some general rules of thumb anti-ownership could make sense, but ultimately it's all a question of harm and not ownership in itself.
The question is whether some people, when considered to own animals, will do more harm as a consequence. Other people will take "ownership" as a responsibility to protect, so it probably depends on the person.
On average I would say it does harm because of how most people treat ownership and property, so if you want to appeal to some general rules of thumb anti-ownership could make sense, but ultimately it's all a question of harm and not ownership in itself.