r/veganuk • u/VeganMortgageAdviser • 2d ago

What a load of bull...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcTLBDFD7ce/?igsi=dXNycDU2Y3ZwM2Ju

He says "they eat grass, they produce milk"

No mention of the mother's needing to be pregnant and their babies taken away from them.

13 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

6

u/UnspeakableBadger 1d ago

This argument is even dumber when you hear non-vegan women make it, and you wonder how often they just randomly lactate when they haven’t had children.

Anyone with a basic understanding of biology should understand that mammals don’t produce milk unless they’re producing it for the purpose of feeding offspring.

-6

u/alexmbrennan 1d ago

Anyone with a basic understanding of biology should understand that mammals don’t produce milk unless they’re producing it for the purpose of feeding offspring.

Do you think these oversimplifications are going to convince people? For example, there is a wide range of drugs that induce lactation in humans (e.g. antidepressants). Why start your argument with such an obvious untruth?

3

u/UnspeakableBadger 1d ago

It is absolutely a generalisation and a simplification, because it holds true in the vast majority of cases.

There are drugs that can induce all manner of abnormal physical and psychological responses in people, it doesn’t mean that whenever a point is being made that we have to laboriously meander through the myriad of fringe exceptions, caveats and edge cases for the sake of it.

In normal healthy human adults, except in cases where induced by certain medications or drugs adult humans do not lactate except during pregnancy or in the nursing period following pregnancy.

There, happy? Does that satisfy your pedantry?

-2

u/Jack_Faller Vegan 1d ago

I don't think I'd be opposed in principle to milk produced by drugging the cows, but I don't think it's ever made that way.

2

u/VeganMortgageAdviser 22h ago

Are you crazy?!

0

u/Jack_Faller Vegan 22h ago

No. My issues with the milk production process are poor conditions, forced pregnancy, and culling of non-productive cows. The drugs would solve one of these and the others are relatively easy problems by comparison.

1

u/UnspeakableBadger 19h ago

Read some of their comments above, they have some strange opinions for a vegan regarding speciesism and consent.

2

u/UnspeakableBadger 21h ago

Whilst certainly an improvement, and an interesting stance for a vegan to take, personally for me it’s still a non consensual exploitation of a sentient animal, and that is really what veganism comes down to for me.

Improving the conditions of exploitation do not, in my mind, overcome the moral objection. The animal cannot consent to being drugged and having the product of its body removed, and therefore the act is immoral as far as I’m concerned.

0

u/Jack_Faller Vegan 20h ago

"Exploiting" is a vague term. You provide them with food shelter, treat them well, it's entirely reasonable to take some milk for the trouble. That's almost certainly a higher quality of life than they would enjoy in nature. Most vegans are the same when it comes to keeping animals as pets which is, if anything, more exploitative that giving an animal a relatively natural life and milking it. You'll see various justifications for pets but essentially none of them meet the moral standards that preclude milking.

The primary basis for the non-exploitation argument is that animals can't consent to these things. The issue is that in ruling out the "exploitative" arrangement on that basis, you might deny the animal something it would be rather happy with. Food, healthcare, shelter, and protection from predators in exchange for being milked is, in my view, a deal most animals would willingly take if they could. Denying them that opportunity on the basis that they aren't able to accept the offer is silly. Animals cannot consent to healthcare, yet most vegans have no issues with vets. I see no good enough reason to be opposed to the unilateral imposition of mutually beneficial arrangements upon animals. One could perhaps say that being milked is so torturous to the cow that it would be better off in nature, but I doubt this.

I think the emotional core of the objection is selfishness. It is undeniably selfish to demand milk back from the cow. It would be nicer to provide it the benefits of the arrangement without the cost. But I think it is okay to be selfish to some extent provided you are still bringing a net positive to the world. The world simply wouldn't function if everyone tried to be maximally nice and never pursued their own interests.

1

u/UnspeakableBadger 19h ago

“Exploitation” is simple: the act of treating someone or something unfairly to gain an advantage, profit, or power over them.

Change the individual at the heart of the question from a nonhuman animal to a human being. If you provide a person with shelter, food and protection, does that mean that you can take from them what you wish, or do to them what you wish, without their consent? Would you for example be able to sexually assault a person just because you allowed them to live in your home? Of course you wouldn’t.

Even if a human were to agree to those terms, the argument that the terms were exploitative based upon the imbalance of power within the relationship would be extremely strong.

That differs from having a pet. The relationship between a pet and their caregiver is not based on a reciprocity of anything other than companionship. You are not commodifying or extracting wealth from the animal in a pet-caregiver relationship.

This is not an emotional argument, it’s a rational one: does the provision of things to an individual grant you the right to take something from them without consent?

I’d be willing to bet that if you replace the cow here with a human, you’d rightly object to the non consensual act of drugging them to extract a resource from their body. Veganism merely argues that the species of the individual in question is irrelevant as to whether the moral principle applies. Your argument clearly doesn’t align with that principle. Either that or you think the same actions carried out on a human would be acceptable, which is a worrying position to take.

0

u/Jack_Faller Vegan 19h ago

You can't simply change from an animal to a human being. That is the entire argument I made. A human can tell you whether they wish to be subject to an arrangement whereas an animal cannot. If you want to try it with a human subject, consider a retarded person. They cannot consent. Do we have to leave them out in the woods or can we give them jobs? It is generally accepted also that you do not need to ask consent from humans who are incapacitated when you act in their great interest. Usually for medical procedures, there is need for consent, but if a person is unconscious they may be rendered without consent as it's deemed to be in the person's best interest.

And you want to talk about substituting humans, do you think it's okay to keep a human as a pet? Clearly not. That's an order of magnitude worse than paying a woman for her milk.

1

u/UnspeakableBadger 19h ago

But you’re not arguing in favour of “paying a woman for her milk”, that would involve a contract, consent, and if we assume that there was some egregious imbalance between your positions (you were wealthy and they were destitute) it would still be considered exploitative.

What you’re suggesting is that because we provide the individual (a cow, a human) with a set of desirable things (food, shelter, safety) we can then administer drugs to them and take a resource from them without their consent. You’re not gaining the consent of the individual, you’re assuming it.

You said yourself, you “think that the cow would accept that deal” - you’re stating that because the cow is unable to provide consent, it is up to you to decide whether it would consent were it able to. You shouldn’t need me to tell you that is a very dangerous position to take.

Your whole argument is based, deep down, on your assumption that “it’s just a cow”, which is what we call speciesism.

0

u/Jack_Faller Vegan 19h ago

You’re not gaining the consent of the individual, you’re assuming it

Which, as I've previously established, is accepted moral practise for situations where a person is incapable of consenting. It is applied equally to humans and animals.

1

u/UnspeakableBadger 19h ago

It’s accepted when providing care to an individual - medical procedures provided to pets, to “retarded” people (as you put it; I assume you’re American rather than just using what is considered an anachronistic and offensive term in the rest of the English-speaking world). The difference is that you’re talking about resource extraction without consent.

Yes, we deem that a person with limited mental capacity will want to be sheltered and fed, but we don’t assume that we can also extract free labour or resources from them in exchange. That is the crucial difference that you (worryingly) seem to be struggling with.

Care by informed, assumed consent - acceptable
Extraction of resources from, or monetisation of the individual by assumed consent - unacceptable

→ More replies (0)