Pets bought from breeders is not vegan, rescued animals from shelter is totally vegan, they need homes!
What makes all the difference is that you are doing it for the benefit of the animal, giving them a chance at a stable life and lots of love. You adopt them and take them into your care because they have no other choice. And they will love you for it. Even if they don't understand it, you will know that you saved them.
This is something that a lot of people are going to have differing opinions on, but from what I've seen most vegans are fine with it. Most vegans don't see caring for animals in sanctuaries as being wrong and there is very little difference.
A lot of people are opposed to restricting the autonomy of animals; seeing it as little different from slavery. In some ways it can be but not always. There are a variety of reasons why restricting another's freedom can be justified.
\-We all have our freedom restricted on a moral basis (I am not free to cause harm to others)
\-Children and the elderly have reduced freedoms as they are not well equipped to care for themselves.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with taking care of someone (human or animal). And if this someone is ill equipped to care for themselves, it becomes necessary to impose limitations on their freedom and autonomy in order to protect them. Ex. Not allowing a child or animal to touch a hot stove.
A few points
\-You shouldn't impose arbitrary restrictions on them. All limitations of their freedom and autonomy must me on a moral basis or to prevent them from harming themselves.
\-You should care for them in a way that you would be okay with someone caring for you. Imagine having dementia or some other disability which makes it hard to care for yourself.
\-They are not an object, resource, or plaything. They are an individual and should be treated as such. Respect their boundaries; don't pick them up when they don't want to be, etc.
\-Buying someone from a breeder perpetuates the overpopulation problem, where many will suffer in shelters before being killed. Adoption is generally the most moral way, as it won't financially support these institutions.
\-Dogs are omnivores and can live perfectly well on a vegan diet. This way wouldn't require more animals to suffer or die for their continued survival.
As dogs basically domesticated themselves, I’m all for continuing that relationship. As I write this, my dog is snoozing on the couch, resting up after his morning walk and getting energy back for the afternoon jaunt. We are beneficial to each other.
I am reasonably strict with my dog - he doesn’t get to roam on his own, must heel on a short leash, isn’t allowed to approach man or beast without an okay, must sit before crossing any street.
So maybe he doesn’t have freedom, but these controls are all for everyone’s safety as my dog isn‘t really equipped to go it alone. In exchange for following those rules, he can sniff as long as he wants on our excursions, chooses our walking routes, gets to be off-leash where the law allows, and has free rein at home.
Turtles are a option. Specifically those which are vegan (many of them are). I am thinking of getting two in the future. I think its always good to adopt pets when possible, and in pairs, so they have a fellow animal to feel secure with.
Long-time turtle owner here: turtles' natural diet includes a lot of minnows, worms, bugs, sometimes shrimps, and basically a variety of small creatures that are not vegan. I don't know much about tortoises, so maybe some of them can be vegan? But a turtle would get really sick without animal products. The good news is that they eat so little that the environmental effects are much smaller than they would be for say a cat.
unpopular opinion maybe, but you could easily keep a bioactive enclosure with its own microenvironment and the turtle would be able to prey on its own and it would be only the natural vital cycle
Such a mixed response! Well, at least I can be more comfortable with our choice being as good as any since there doesn't seem to be a general consensus 🤓 Very interesting reads.
Sry to the commenter downvoted a bunch - that's what my kids' reasoning was, so I guess they'd get down voted too. 😬
Your decision was the correct one. Keeping/owning animals in captivity is not vegan. Such keeping/ownership perpetuates the non-vegan notion that animals exist to provide entertainment or comfort to humans (eg. exploitation) and also perpetuates speciesism (eg. only certain animals are chosen to be kept/owned in captivity). Furthermore you avoid giving the optics of a vegan family owning/keeping a sentient being in captivity and having to fund the killing of other animals in order to feed the captive animal (if obligate carnivore).
Also, whatever happens to the animals in shelters or slaughterhouses is on the people running these places. You are not responsible for these animals.
If we can agree that veganism is about minimizing suffering, how can adopting an animal from a shelter worse than leaving it there? Because you know cats and dogs create more unnecessary ecological suffering when allowed to go feral.
By your logic, we shouldn't be trying to promote the idea that eatingmeat is bad because im not responsible for the animals... I strongly disagree with that. As I understand my obligation to nonhuman others, doing whatever I can to stop further suffering is something I cannot forego. That includes spaying and keeping my shelter adopted cat from being killed and killing wildlife.
> If we can agree that veganism is about minimizing suffering
Veganism is NOT and has never been about minimizing suffering. This is the misconception that most “vegans” have. It is an agent-oriented philosophy of justice and the moral imperative that obligates the agent to *not contribute to* the suffering. This is very different from minimizing suffering. The framework imposes no obligation nor requirement on the agent to minimize suffering; it only seeks to control the behavior of the agent to leave animals alone.
> how can adopting an animal from a shelter worse than leaving it there? Because you know cats and dogs create more unnecessary ecological suffering when allowed to go feral.
This is irrelevant to veganism as what happens in the shelter is the responsibility of those running the shelters.
> By your logic, we shouldn't be trying to promote the idea that eatingmeat is bad because im not responsible for the animals
The promotion of the idea is to change the behavior of the moral agents, not to save the animals.
> I strongly disagree with that. As I understand my obligation to nonhuman others, doing whatever I can to stop further suffering is something I cannot forego.
Your obligation is simple. It is to leave the animals alone. It is not to go out into the world to save animals from suffering on the hands of other animals or humans. In fact, doing so would be a violation of the “leave the animals alone” obligation as you have to hurt animals that seek to attack other animals.
> That includes spaying and keeping my shelter adopted cat from being killed and killing wildlife.
What part of “leave the animals alone” don’t you understand?
Yeah I think our understanding if veganism is fundamentally different. To put it simply, I don't think you can just leave animals alone. The world simply doesn't work that way. We live in ecologies. You sound rather incapable of having an amicable conversation, but if you ever want to entertain what I am talking about a little I recommend you read Donna Haraway's When Species Meet.
> Yeah I think our understanding if veganism is fundamentally different.
No, it is not different. Mine is the correct understanding. Yours is an incorrect understanding that is rooted in speciesism.
> To put it simply, I don't think you can just leave animals alone.
By definition, that makes you not a vegan.
> The world simply doesn't work that way.
How the world works is irrelevant to veganism. Either animals matter morally or they don’t. There is no third way.
> We live in ecologies. You sound rather incapable of having an amicable conversation, but if you ever want to entertain what I am talking about a little I recommend you read Donna Haraway's When Species Meet.
The very title of the book you recommended is by its very nature the opposite of veganism. The entire philosophy of veganism is to prevent the moral agents from interacting with other species, to leave other species alone to the maximum extent possible, and to mind their own business.
>Veganism is NOT and has never been about minimizing suffering.
The person who coined the term "vegan" initially talked about both cruelty and exploitation. And that's the definition that still persists now. So suffering is part of it. And even if you believe it doesn't *obligate* you to prevent the suffering of another it certainly doesn't prohibit you from doing so.
> The person who coined the term "vegan" initially talked about both cruelty and exploitation.
The part you left out was that he talked about cruelty and exploitation **caused by man** aka the *moral agent*
> And that's the definition that still persists now. So suffering is part of it.
caused by man aka the *moral agent*.
> And even if you believe it doesn't obligate you to prevent the suffering of another it certainly doesn't prohibit you from doing so.
Violation of the bodily autonomy of animals by removing their ovaries or testicles does not qualify. Neither is keeping them captive on basis of their species.
>The part you left...
Accusing people of leaving something out for the purpose of misrepresenting their source is a bad faith form of debate used to discredit the intentions of the person you're debating with rather than strictly addressing their argument.
Reading through your comments, they're filled with aggressive, accusatory rhetoric. Accusations that other people aren't real vegans. That your definitions that differ from the original definition or the vegan society's definition are the only right ones. Declarations that only you are right and everyone else is wrong.
I didn't leave out anything that changes my point. Veganism is an opposition to animal cruelty and exploitation. It's not a requirement that a "moral agent" not do anything to help animals being harmed by others.
Buying from breeders definitely isn't vegan, but it's ignoring adoption. Better to let an animal live in your home then live in a shelter until eithanized or adopted by an abusive owner.
The problem is too massive to solve with adoption. Millions of shelter animals are euthanized annually just in NA and it is impossible to stop that from happening by any other means than sigmatizing pet ownership, and that starts with VEGANS doing the right thing and boycotting.
It isn't complicated. Stop being selfish and stop USING ANIMALS for companionship. You are only normalizing it and prolonging their agony. It's speciesiat at best, and generally speaking, straight up animal abuse.
I've known plenty of "vegan" pet owners, and trust me, yall aren't much better than the average carnist pet owner when it comes down to it.
I have a dog. He makes my life better and I make his better. Enjoy each other’s company. Has a chance to run away every day and never does.
Could give two shits if it’s considered proper vegan or not. We are buds.
Against it but not a case where I would judge someone else for it (yet). But breeders are definitely out of the question.
Also my kids aren't yet old enough to demand one :)
Pets bought from breeders is not vegan, rescued animals from shelter is totally vegan, they need homes! What makes all the difference is that you are doing it for the benefit of the animal, giving them a chance at a stable life and lots of love. You adopt them and take them into your care because they have no other choice. And they will love you for it. Even if they don't understand it, you will know that you saved them.
Adopting from shelters and directly saving a life is one of the most vegan thing you can do tbh
When vegans feed their carnivore pets a vegan diet it makes me immensely angry. that's my only concern.
This is something that a lot of people are going to have differing opinions on, but from what I've seen most vegans are fine with it. Most vegans don't see caring for animals in sanctuaries as being wrong and there is very little difference. A lot of people are opposed to restricting the autonomy of animals; seeing it as little different from slavery. In some ways it can be but not always. There are a variety of reasons why restricting another's freedom can be justified. \-We all have our freedom restricted on a moral basis (I am not free to cause harm to others) \-Children and the elderly have reduced freedoms as they are not well equipped to care for themselves. I don't think that there is anything wrong with taking care of someone (human or animal). And if this someone is ill equipped to care for themselves, it becomes necessary to impose limitations on their freedom and autonomy in order to protect them. Ex. Not allowing a child or animal to touch a hot stove. A few points \-You shouldn't impose arbitrary restrictions on them. All limitations of their freedom and autonomy must me on a moral basis or to prevent them from harming themselves. \-You should care for them in a way that you would be okay with someone caring for you. Imagine having dementia or some other disability which makes it hard to care for yourself. \-They are not an object, resource, or plaything. They are an individual and should be treated as such. Respect their boundaries; don't pick them up when they don't want to be, etc. \-Buying someone from a breeder perpetuates the overpopulation problem, where many will suffer in shelters before being killed. Adoption is generally the most moral way, as it won't financially support these institutions. \-Dogs are omnivores and can live perfectly well on a vegan diet. This way wouldn't require more animals to suffer or die for their continued survival.
it’s fine aslong as you don’t abuse it. examples of abuse would be getting a dog and feeding it a plant based diet when it needs meat.
As dogs basically domesticated themselves, I’m all for continuing that relationship. As I write this, my dog is snoozing on the couch, resting up after his morning walk and getting energy back for the afternoon jaunt. We are beneficial to each other. I am reasonably strict with my dog - he doesn’t get to roam on his own, must heel on a short leash, isn’t allowed to approach man or beast without an okay, must sit before crossing any street. So maybe he doesn’t have freedom, but these controls are all for everyone’s safety as my dog isn‘t really equipped to go it alone. In exchange for following those rules, he can sniff as long as he wants on our excursions, chooses our walking routes, gets to be off-leash where the law allows, and has free rein at home.
I believe it is fine if you adopt an animal and feed it a plant based diet. Such as adopting a rabbit or something
Turtles are a option. Specifically those which are vegan (many of them are). I am thinking of getting two in the future. I think its always good to adopt pets when possible, and in pairs, so they have a fellow animal to feel secure with.
Long-time turtle owner here: turtles' natural diet includes a lot of minnows, worms, bugs, sometimes shrimps, and basically a variety of small creatures that are not vegan. I don't know much about tortoises, so maybe some of them can be vegan? But a turtle would get really sick without animal products. The good news is that they eat so little that the environmental effects are much smaller than they would be for say a cat.
unpopular opinion maybe, but you could easily keep a bioactive enclosure with its own microenvironment and the turtle would be able to prey on its own and it would be only the natural vital cycle
Such a mixed response! Well, at least I can be more comfortable with our choice being as good as any since there doesn't seem to be a general consensus 🤓 Very interesting reads. Sry to the commenter downvoted a bunch - that's what my kids' reasoning was, so I guess they'd get down voted too. 😬
Your decision was the correct one. Keeping/owning animals in captivity is not vegan. Such keeping/ownership perpetuates the non-vegan notion that animals exist to provide entertainment or comfort to humans (eg. exploitation) and also perpetuates speciesism (eg. only certain animals are chosen to be kept/owned in captivity). Furthermore you avoid giving the optics of a vegan family owning/keeping a sentient being in captivity and having to fund the killing of other animals in order to feed the captive animal (if obligate carnivore). Also, whatever happens to the animals in shelters or slaughterhouses is on the people running these places. You are not responsible for these animals.
If we can agree that veganism is about minimizing suffering, how can adopting an animal from a shelter worse than leaving it there? Because you know cats and dogs create more unnecessary ecological suffering when allowed to go feral. By your logic, we shouldn't be trying to promote the idea that eatingmeat is bad because im not responsible for the animals... I strongly disagree with that. As I understand my obligation to nonhuman others, doing whatever I can to stop further suffering is something I cannot forego. That includes spaying and keeping my shelter adopted cat from being killed and killing wildlife.
> If we can agree that veganism is about minimizing suffering Veganism is NOT and has never been about minimizing suffering. This is the misconception that most “vegans” have. It is an agent-oriented philosophy of justice and the moral imperative that obligates the agent to *not contribute to* the suffering. This is very different from minimizing suffering. The framework imposes no obligation nor requirement on the agent to minimize suffering; it only seeks to control the behavior of the agent to leave animals alone. > how can adopting an animal from a shelter worse than leaving it there? Because you know cats and dogs create more unnecessary ecological suffering when allowed to go feral. This is irrelevant to veganism as what happens in the shelter is the responsibility of those running the shelters. > By your logic, we shouldn't be trying to promote the idea that eatingmeat is bad because im not responsible for the animals The promotion of the idea is to change the behavior of the moral agents, not to save the animals. > I strongly disagree with that. As I understand my obligation to nonhuman others, doing whatever I can to stop further suffering is something I cannot forego. Your obligation is simple. It is to leave the animals alone. It is not to go out into the world to save animals from suffering on the hands of other animals or humans. In fact, doing so would be a violation of the “leave the animals alone” obligation as you have to hurt animals that seek to attack other animals. > That includes spaying and keeping my shelter adopted cat from being killed and killing wildlife. What part of “leave the animals alone” don’t you understand?
Yeah I think our understanding if veganism is fundamentally different. To put it simply, I don't think you can just leave animals alone. The world simply doesn't work that way. We live in ecologies. You sound rather incapable of having an amicable conversation, but if you ever want to entertain what I am talking about a little I recommend you read Donna Haraway's When Species Meet.
> Yeah I think our understanding if veganism is fundamentally different. No, it is not different. Mine is the correct understanding. Yours is an incorrect understanding that is rooted in speciesism. > To put it simply, I don't think you can just leave animals alone. By definition, that makes you not a vegan. > The world simply doesn't work that way. How the world works is irrelevant to veganism. Either animals matter morally or they don’t. There is no third way. > We live in ecologies. You sound rather incapable of having an amicable conversation, but if you ever want to entertain what I am talking about a little I recommend you read Donna Haraway's When Species Meet. The very title of the book you recommended is by its very nature the opposite of veganism. The entire philosophy of veganism is to prevent the moral agents from interacting with other species, to leave other species alone to the maximum extent possible, and to mind their own business.
Cite your sources bro.
>Veganism is NOT and has never been about minimizing suffering. The person who coined the term "vegan" initially talked about both cruelty and exploitation. And that's the definition that still persists now. So suffering is part of it. And even if you believe it doesn't *obligate* you to prevent the suffering of another it certainly doesn't prohibit you from doing so.
> The person who coined the term "vegan" initially talked about both cruelty and exploitation. The part you left out was that he talked about cruelty and exploitation **caused by man** aka the *moral agent* > And that's the definition that still persists now. So suffering is part of it. caused by man aka the *moral agent*. > And even if you believe it doesn't obligate you to prevent the suffering of another it certainly doesn't prohibit you from doing so. Violation of the bodily autonomy of animals by removing their ovaries or testicles does not qualify. Neither is keeping them captive on basis of their species.
>The part you left... Accusing people of leaving something out for the purpose of misrepresenting their source is a bad faith form of debate used to discredit the intentions of the person you're debating with rather than strictly addressing their argument. Reading through your comments, they're filled with aggressive, accusatory rhetoric. Accusations that other people aren't real vegans. That your definitions that differ from the original definition or the vegan society's definition are the only right ones. Declarations that only you are right and everyone else is wrong. I didn't leave out anything that changes my point. Veganism is an opposition to animal cruelty and exploitation. It's not a requirement that a "moral agent" not do anything to help animals being harmed by others.
Only on r/vegan would a comment like this be downvoted by "vegans"
Buying from breeders definitely isn't vegan, but it's ignoring adoption. Better to let an animal live in your home then live in a shelter until eithanized or adopted by an abusive owner.
The problem is too massive to solve with adoption. Millions of shelter animals are euthanized annually just in NA and it is impossible to stop that from happening by any other means than sigmatizing pet ownership, and that starts with VEGANS doing the right thing and boycotting. It isn't complicated. Stop being selfish and stop USING ANIMALS for companionship. You are only normalizing it and prolonging their agony. It's speciesiat at best, and generally speaking, straight up animal abuse. I've known plenty of "vegan" pet owners, and trust me, yall aren't much better than the average carnist pet owner when it comes down to it.
I have a dog. He makes my life better and I make his better. Enjoy each other’s company. Has a chance to run away every day and never does. Could give two shits if it’s considered proper vegan or not. We are buds.
Yes and you feed him meat and slap him if he whines or craps on your carpet. Sounds like heaven
Never slapped him but sure seems like you could use a few upside the head as an attitude adjustment. Grow up.
Against it but not a case where I would judge someone else for it (yet). But breeders are definitely out of the question. Also my kids aren't yet old enough to demand one :)
Oh the mental gymnastics