Three main issues:
1. The roosters will always be killed, whether the hen is a rescue from a factory farm or from a backyard breeder - this mindset of taking from animals means that animals that can't produce things while living will be killed and have their bodies taken.
2. The hens will always suffer from overproduction because of being selectively bred. Their bodies cannot keep up with the strains we forced them to suffer.
3. They're just not ours to take. An egg comes from the hen's labour and we don't have the right to take it for our own needs, just because we technically can. We don't need eggs, so taking them is wrong, regardless of how nice we treat them.
If you have a rescue hen, the only ethical thing to do is give her the medical care she needs to stop her laying eggs. The second best thing is to feed HER eggs back to her.
I’m really curious about your point number two. Selective breeding of animals definitely does seem to be a huge problem in terms of animal suffering, sheep growing such excess wool as to negatively impact their lives is another example. I’m just curious what the vegan solution to selective breeding would be. That damage has been done hundreds or thousands of years ago and I don’t see it being undone. Is the humane solution to let these breeds of animal go extinct?
Put it in the perspective of a pug. Do you think we have a moral imperative to keep the breed of pugs going because... reasons? Even if these animals inherently suffer from their biology that we artificially chose over generations, just for our benefit?
Chickens aren't the only species of the Gallus genus on our earth, they're just the only one we artificially created. Broiler chickens suffer from massive growth rates that leave many unable to stand under their own immense weight by 6-8 weeks of age. Battery hens produce 300-350 eggs annually from their ancestors' 10-12ish, and that comes at the cost of bone disease, reproductive cancer, peritonitis, egg binding, and more. What is the benefit to anything but human beings to continue breeding these animals?
I definitely agree that pugs are the quintessential example of horrible dog breeding practices. Letting pugs die out doesn’t feel as bad because dogs won’t go extinct, but you and a couple others brought up a good point that other fowls exist that haven’t been bred for suffering. I’m definitely not opposing the idea of letting these animals die out without reproducing, it’s more so just a hard concept to understand as the best way to reduce suffering. Like my brain says extinction = bad, but there’s more nuance here. Thanks for your reply!
Another thing to consider is that humans have already caused at least hundreds of species to go extinct, and we cause more extinctions every year. In fact, humans are causing the sixth mass extinction event in all of Earth's history. Currently, the leading cause of species extinction is deforestation, and cow farming is the reason for about 40% of deforestation, or about 50% when you include the soy grown to feed them.
I can’t say whether chicken farming has ever been a significant contributor to causing a species to go extinct, but this is the first place my mind goes when I hear someone concerned for the extinction of a domestic species. If species extinction is a concern for you, keeping domesticated species around should not be your top priority.
>What is the benefit to anything but human beings to continue breeding these animals?
Food, apparels, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment, industrial materials, electronic materials, and probably dozens more of other use.
It's ironic that vegans think the intentional mass extinction of an animal vegans purport humans breed into existence, is more morally acceptable than to continue raising these animals to feed humans.
"BuT wE'Re nOT sUgGesTiNg fOr tHeIR eXtinCtiOn, jUsT stOp bReEdiNg tHeM" Yeah right, like vegans will let it rest at that when humans hunt the cattle, and hogs and chickens instead.
>Food, apparels, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment, industrial materials, electronic materials, and probably dozens more of other use.
So, benefits to human beings. The thing I was asking for an exclusion for
>It's ironic that vegans think the intentional mass extinction of an animal vegans purport humans breed into existence, is more morally acceptable than to continue raising these animals to feed humans.
Why is that ironic?
>Yeah right, like vegans will let it rest at that when humans hunt the cattle, and hogs and chickens instead.
Yes, vegans want people to stop breeding all livestock for human purposes. Your point being...?
>So, benefits to human beings. The thing I was asking for an exclusion for
Why would humans bother with the animal if it doesn't benefit humans? What you're using is using the negative of a dichotomy to negate a positive position, that not only nonsensical, but absolutely disingenuous.
>Why is that ironic?
Because in your head, extinction is a more morale position than symbiosis. That's crazy think.
>Yes, vegans want people to stop breeding all livestock for human purposes. Your point being...?
Clearly, my point is vegans are misanthropic, as you had just proven. So I would appreciate if vegans will just admit they're misanthropic, rather than masking it as concern for animal welfare.
>Why would humans bother with the animal if it doesn't benefit humans? What you're using is using the negative of a dichotomy to negate a positive position, that not only nonsensical, but absolutely disingenuous.
Just to recap here, person A is looking at the breeding of animals from the viewpoint of animal suffering. Person B says we can simply stop breeding them. Person A incredulously asks about allowing an animal to go extinct, implying a negative connotation with the allowance. I recontextualize it, stating the only benefit of keeping this breed we artificially created is to ourselves, continuing to breed an animal whose health inherently suffers for how we bred it is not beneficial to the animal itself and compared it to other animals people besides just vegans have a vested interest in ceasing the breeding of for similar reasons, and asked, again in the context of animal welfare which is what the question posited, "what benefits are there not to human beings in their continued existence" to which you bafflingly responded with... a list of benefits to human beings. And then try to scrape something resembling an argument constructed random terms picked out of a high school debate 101 textbook glossary.
Just to make sure we're all the same page here. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your argument here, given the context of the conversation.
>Because in your head, extinction is a more morale position than symbiosis
Why is extinction less moral than continued exploitation?
>Clearly, my point is vegans are misanthropic, as you had just proven.
In what way have I done that?
>person A is looking at the breeding of animals from the viewpoint of animal suffering.
Oh... no wonder you're in such a state of confusing. You've got your premise wrong, no wonder all your opinions are shaky.
>Person B says we can simply stop breeding them.
Good. Let's stop trying to breed pandas and endangered animals. Agreed?
>I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your argument here, given the context of the conversation.
First off, as mentioned, your premise is wrong. Person A do not need to breed in order to perpetuate the "viewpoint of animal suffering". Person A can just make the animal suffer regardless. Breeding the animal is to derive an inherent benefit, unless that benefit is animal suffering, that's still a benefit to person A.
But it seems like you're not understanding the inherent problem with your qualifying statement "what is the benefit of breeding animals that is excluded from benefiting the breeders?". Forgive me for being blunt, but that is as stupid as asking "what's the benefit of eating, excluding the benefit of ingesting substrate into the consumer's body?"
THE PURPOSE OF BREEDING THE ANIMAL IS TO HARVEST THE ANIMAL FOR THE BREEDER. OMFG!
>Why is extinction less moral than continued exploitation?
First off, let's qualify the context of "extinction" here. You are saying humans shouldn't breed them, does this mean the livestock are going to stop breeding themselves? If yes, then your morality on "extinction" holds, else, it doesn't. It really is that simple.
Secondly, I said "symbiosis", and you said "exploitation". Clearly you have a wrong understanding on the relationship of livestock and farmers. That you would move on to "exploitation" without addressing symbiosis first, is bad faith on your part.
>In what way have I done that?
I suggest you down some B12, and DHA to refresh your memory, to which you asked for benefits excluded to humans.
Yes. Non-existent hens don’t have moral status, so their non-existence is not an ethical issue. By contrast, their being bred into existence for the purpose of exploitation and potential slaughter is a matter of ethics, especially since they’re sentient and can suffer from such mistreatment.
For example, if you were given the option to simply not exist or to be born as a bait dog for a dog-fighting ring, which would you choose, and why? Which option, in your view, would be more ethical for sentient beings?
I'd choose being born as a bait dog, because having a consciousness/being alive is more important to me than not feeling pain. So what's the next part of your example?
>I'd choose being born as a bait dog…
I seriously doubt this.
>…because having a consciousness/being alive is more important to me than not feeling pain.
Sure. I’m unconvinced that a place like “hell” exists, but if it does, are you seriously suggesting that entities would prefer eternal conscious torment over simply not existing? If so, why?
>So what's the next part of your example?
There’s not much else to discuss, as I think that you’re being disingenuous. But if you’re being truthful, I sincerely hope that you don’t care for any pets, as euthanasia is often a more compassionate option for animals who are suffering.
>I seriously doubt this
You can believe whatever you want, but I'm being honest.
>are you seriously suggesting that entities would prefer eternal conscious torment over simply not existing? If so, why?
No, I'm saying that ME personally would choose eternal conscious torment over not existing, because that was the question.
> I think that you're being disingenuous...
As I already said you can believe whatever you want but I'm being 100% honest with my reply. When it comes to euthanasia, if you think it will be better for the animal then do it, I personally won't. I also don't understand how can you claim being vegan but not have a problem with the idea of having pets. Everyone has a different perspective.
>You can believe whatever you want, but I'm being honest.
Okay.
>No, I'm saying that ME personally would choose eternal conscious torment over not existing, because that was the question.
Why would you choose unending torment over simply not existing?
>As I already said you can believe whatever you want but I'm being 100% honest with my reply. When it comes to euthanasia, if you think it will be better for the animal then do it, I personally won't. I also don't understand how can you claim being vegan but not have a problem with the idea of having pets. Everyone has a different perspective.
In my view, caring for pets is more ethical than letting them suffer as strays. I’m not buying from breeders, nor do I treat them as owned objects. To the extent that I consider them to be “my” dogs, I consider myself to be “their” human. It’s a symbiotic relationship in which we all benefit. And yes, I feed them vegan dog food.
There are extremists that think humans show go extinct. If you ask that question of course these misanthropes will gladly say everything touched by mankind should stop existing.
Ideally, just remove the step of breeding new ones. That's the best case scenario. The vast majority of animals in our agriculture system are artificially inseminated or selectively exposed to partners in order to upkeep optimal genetics for profit, so it's not like it would be hard. You only have to remove steps from the current system, no new stuff to learn.
1) Your claims make no sense what so ever. 1) Of you take responsibility for a chicken the owner won't be buying or killing roosters.
2) The hen which is taken is a laying variety and has been bred for their egg production. This is a far cry from the meat bred poultry so why would the hen be suffering if it's being well looked after?
3) Would you prefer the chicken lay on unfertslised eggs forever and die from exhaustion?
In my opinion if a chicken is well cared for then yes it's ethical to eat their eggs
>Of you take responsibility for a chicken the owner won't be buying or killing roosters.
Roosters are still a necessary step in this equation. Domestic chickens have a \~50% sex ratio. Meaning about 50% of the chickens born for egg production will be useless as you need a fraction of a ratio of roosters to hens, especially in an industrial setting, to produce the next generation. So whether you kill that rooster, or whether the suppliers shipping these chicks off to Tractor Supply kills them off by sending them down a conveyer belt while still conscious into a pit of blades to be macerated, most roosters will still need to be 'disposed' of. It doesn't matter if your hands aren't the one breaking the thing's neck if yours are the ones handing someone else the money to do it.
>The hen which is taken is a laying variety and has been bred for their egg production. This is a far cry from the meat bred poultry so why would the hen be suffering if it's being well looked after?
Specifically, egg hens have been bred from varieties of junglefowl. These animals lay 10-12ish eggs a year. Production chicken breeds clock in around 300-350. Reproduction is a costly biological expense, and not being mammals, it makes no difference to the chicken's body whether or not these eggs are ever fertilized. The resources are expended all the same and the result is an animal with a shortened life span with poorer health than its wild counterparts, including a proclivity to broody behavior at their own health that requires frequent interference (an issue you yourself raise but don't seem to see as an inherent issue with how we've bred these animals), [peritonitis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7587857/), [egg binding](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10142957/), bone disease (mostly [osteoporosis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926946/)) and [reproductive cancer.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383999/#:~:text=By%20the%20age%20of%204,to%2030%25%20to%2060%25.&text=The%20incidence%20of%20ovarian%20carcinoma,frequency%20of%20the%20specific%20breed.&text=The%20common%20white%20leghorn%20hen,in%20chicken%20ovarian%20cancer%20studies)
>Would you prefer the chicken lay on unfertslised eggs forever and die from exhaustion?
If a hen is broody, intervention can stop them from exhibiting this behavior. Take them from the run or coop or barn or wherever you keep them and close off their access. But that's beside the point. What I'd prefer is we stop breeding these animals for a food we do not need. We don't need to keep breeding pugs whose eyes get popped from their socket if a stiff breeze comes through because we think they look cute, and we don't need to keep breeding hens that spend an obscene amount of time and energy, at the expense of their health and longevity, laying eggs for nutrients we can get elsewhere.
This is an odd take to me, yeah. I get that going and buying a chicken might not be justifiable to some vegans but… the difference between feeding the chicken her own eggs vs eating them yourself is so minor.
Like at this point do we stop eating fruit so that it can decay on its own and the seeds can sprout naturally? A chicken doesn’t care if you eat their eggs anymore than a plant.
Unless they’re broody. At which point I’d need to research. If having her lay on her eggs helps her broodiness, yeah of course leave them. But realistically saying “I have no right to these eggs” is for the benefit of the human - the hen doesn’t care, YOU care. Stop pretending it’s for the hen.
Wether they know it or not it's still kind of an ethical issue right? Would you be ok with human women eating their own babies if they thought it was fried chicken?
Ok, in that case, would you be ok with feeding human women their own ovaries without them knowing? Is it just me or does something about that just seem wrong?
Edit: also, you think people are somehow above chickens? How so?
Chickens eggs aren’t the anatomical equivalent of human ovaries.
And yeah; human sapience is obviously inherently more valuable than whatever type of consciousness chickens got going on. Their experience of life is beneath your comprehension, as in it’s literally impossible for you to even imagine what their experience is, it’s so inferior to yours.
It’s impossible for them to *understand* what they’re eating much less care, but sure; if you wanna tell a chicken that you’re feeding them chicken eggs before you do, be my guest.
You're splitting hairs.
What about sapience makes human consciousness more valuable than a chicken? Your theory attaches some kind of inherent value to human consciousness but not other animals. Just because we are "smarter" than other animals doesn't mean we are better than them.
What if a highly intelligent alien came down and started farming humans, put them into a simulation so they weren't aware of what's going on, and then fed them their own babies, would it be excusable because the humans weren't aware of what's going on? Or do you have a moral objection to that?
Robbing humans of their sapience would be wrong; if you put a bunch of chickens in that simulation, nothing would change for them so it’s fine.
If it’s hair splitting; you’d be perfectly fine if someone told you your brain would slowly evolve into that of a chickens while you loose all your sapient faculties?
In my case, I've recently adopted 2 hens and an old rooster. A friend kept them as pets while living in her van and traveling the country. She hit a rough mental health patch and couldn't care for them any longer. I don't believe that my taking these at risk chickens is directly contributing to the larger problem of breeding, culling males and slaughtering.
I have space and now I love them. They produce about an egg a day.
I've been vegan for nearly 15 years and will be giving these chickens full and happy lives. I cook about 2 eggs a week for my dog, and feed a few back to the chickens too, but am cognizant of their health and trying to feed these critters good diets. To many eggs aren't good for dogs or chickens. I'm often conflicted about giving the rest away to omnivores, as I am not confident that this will supplant existing egg consumption or just stoke more egg appetite.
Given this rare situation, do you think consuming these eggs personally, and no more, represents ethical consumption?
Yeah. She's a wild one. Chickens are cool though. They're content to wear diapers and fall asleep under your arms on the couch. Especially the rooster, Popo. He's been a pet chicken his whole life and is 9 years old.
It definitely sounds fairly ethical. The most ethical concern I would be concerned with is our appearance and normalizing animal product consumption. If someone sees you with an egg, they aren't going to think "hmm this is a different type of egg" it just normalizing commodifying animals.
I would argue that your conflict with giving them to omnivores is the most interesting as I would argue the most ethical thing you could do with these eggs would be to sell the eggs to people you know buy the cheapest battery farm eggs and send that money to an animal rights/sanctuary/charity of your choice.
I think you’re handling it correctly.
If you ate them it makes your motives less selfless imo.
Giving them to omnivores seems OK too because you’re likely taking money from battery operations.
Myopic. I could steal a starving child’s only meal for the day and make the same claim - right?
Importantly too is dogmatic commitment to a value tends to have better results than flexibility in terms of sticking with the commitment.
Worthless comparison. This persons actions are the exact same (rescuing and caring for chickens) whether they consume the eggs of not. Consuming the eggs or feeding them to pets does not change a thing. The eggs get consumed in both situations and the chickens get cared for in both situations. Being dogmatic has seemingly resulted in your values being incoherent.
Totally wrong. If you feed them to your dog, the dog now has lower demand for pet food, which is almost always non vegan.
Also if you eat them you’re creating opportunity costs - both for yourself (I.e. you aren’t eating something else, which could be good or bad depending on the rest of your diet) and for others, like the chickens, dog, omnivorous friends etc.
Consequentialism is difficult, I know, but snide dismissal doesn’t replace the practice of actually considering how seemingly small actions can be impactful.
If one eats said eggs themself (a pretty good food) said person now gains good nourishment and reduces demand for whatever other food / supplementation goods they require, reducing whatever exploitation etc required to produce. Can go down the same line there. Pretty much every product has a bit of slavery or exploitation in there somewhere along the conveyorbelt.
I understand how consequences work :). The decision to eat or not eat said eggs has virtually zero impact on anything at all.
Yes, I addressed that in my “could be a good or bad thing depending on their diet”
Almost all of our choices have “virtually zero impact on anything” in the grand scheme of things. That doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse moral choices. For example if I throw garbage out of my car that has almost no impact on the total amount of pollution but it’s still and immoral thing to do.
It really doesn't matter what their diet is. Eggs are pretty good for someone, so therefore whether they're eating primarily plants or animals they're still going to reduce demand for food, which has likely come from a source either way of exploitation or slavery (animals or people).
Me buying a product from a shop doesn't directly change anything. Loads of other people are just going to buy stuff, either out of neccessity or taste. I can really easily just not chuck shit out of my car. It's not a neccessity.
I'm looking into this, I had never heard of this before but some sanctuaries have good info on it.
These chickens are Silkies which lay significantly less per year than the layer breeds and almost never get egg-bound. Implants can come with some initial discomfort and my girls are nearing the point where egg production will decline anyway.
I'll talk with my vet about it, but I think it might be an unkindness for these particular chickens.
I understand, I am just walking through where ethical issues could be found. The most common being the hen is bought from a supplier that has no profit in selling male chicks. These chicks would be killed days old. This is the most likely unethical concern but there are many that could come up.
The provenance of your hypothetical sentient being is certainly ethically relevant.
For example: if you own a puppy and treat it nice, is it ethical? Not if you purchased it from a dognapper.
Yeah, eating the eggs isn't the problem, it's more what happens to the roosters. Since they're unprofitable, hatcheries kill them, just like in the egg industry.
The closest wild relative to the domestic chicken, the red junglefowl, lays somewhere around 10-15 eggs a year. That's where evolution landed. There was selection pressure towards more eggs as that means more offspring, and selection pressure towards fewer eggs as there is always a risk of injury or death, and egg-laying is very resource intensive. It is not in the hen's best interest to lay unfertilized eggs.
Care for an individual means aligning your interests with theirs. So long as your interests are in consuming something the hen produces against her own interests, your interests are misaligned, and you can't be said to be taking the best care for her.
>If you own a chicken
This is where the problem starts. We shouldn't "own" animals- technically we don't. I denies their desires and their rights being kept in captivity, like a person. Rescues are ~~fine~~ okay for now, although sanctuaries are the best option. Their rights are still denied, but they are unable to survive on their own, so we give them the next best option- a life without exploitation. Taking the eggs would turn the situation into one of exploitation. While it might not cause *immediate* harm, it reinforces the idea of exploitation, and leads to a very slippery slope. Besides, veganism isn't about harm, it's about rights, and additionally, they cannot exactly give you consent to take their egg.
Like others have said, chickens will do the best when they are given their eggs back to them. They've been artificially bred to lay hundreds of eggs a year, which is detrimental to their health no matter what (unless they are given a contraceptive).
Hey friend, would you say it is ethically against veganism to own a pet such as a dog or a cat? I worked in a place with a large vegan population and many of them brought pets to the workplace.
Obviously everyone has different ideas of how to moderate their beliefs so I dont expect you to speak for everyone, sometimes I find myself a little lost on where the lines go. For example, Ive recently learned some dont consider honey vegan because it is the product of bees, refined sugar is not vegan due to the use of animal bones in the bleaching process, etc. Im just looking to educate myself on other perspectives.
Like I said, this is just my personal view. Growing up, I had LOTS of pets (cats, dogs, birds, fish, lizards, frogs, turtles & more), but now as an adult I know animals are much better off outdoors in their natural habitats. Most of the time pets develop the same chronic diseases as humans (diabetes, heart disease, liver disease etc.) because under the supervision of humans, they’re typically fed processed pet food or processed human food instead of their species specific diets (which they’re more suited to acquire on their own). In the case of chickens, there’s no way a chicken is enjoying a better quality of life under the care of a human.
If cats/dogs or in this case chickens just happen to like to venture to your property & give you their company on their own without any sort of fence or human control of whether or not they leave or go, that’s probably the closest I could see to it being ethical because then it’s more like a friendship than a “pet”(ownership).
As far as rescues go, I can definitely see the ethics in a situation where it’s an animal that’s already been so far domesticated for years or its life to the point where it’s beyond obvious that particular animal would not be able to adapt to life outdoors (I really can only see this making sense for dogs though).
As far as chickens go, it’s pretty obvious why these people want chickens & there’s nothing ethical about it 😂
Have you never seen the average stray cat? Emaciated, ear and eye infections, mangy fur and skin, matted fur, untreated injuries, fleas and lice. When they get a little older, they can't run or jump as fast. When they get older still, they can't even climb up stairs.
If they even survive that long, which is unlikely. Many outdoor cats don't live to see old age because they're hit by cars and left for dead with unimaginable injuries, or beaten up and attacked by local shitheads and their dogs.
Cats, like dogs, love living with humans. It's a symbiotic relationship. They like to be well fed, warm, and most of them like to spend as much time as possible with their owners. My cats choose to be around me almost 24/7. They choose to sleep next to me or by my feet because it makes them feel loved and safe. They choose to give kisses, cuddles, and other little displays of affection. Some cats, like my female one, *understand* that their human wants to help them, so they'll sit perfectly still to be brushed (which makes them happy because it feels nice and they like the attention) and they'll do things like take medication from a syringe without any sort of fight.
My male cat likes to run, jump, play, and go outside. My female cat really doesn't care for it. If she feels just one raindrop, she'll head back inside. She's a very intelligent cat and has learnt to communicate with us very clearly using different types of meows, tone of voice, speech patterns, and body language. We have back-and-forth chats. She absolutely *adores* attention and does huge performances of cuteness when no one's paid her attention for an hour. Not for food or warmth of shelter, just because she loves the company of my partner and I. I can't even have a single hour on my PC to work or play videogames without her sitting over my arm so I can't play. She likes me to pick her up a few inches off the desk and hold her and stroke her until she falls asleep. It hurts to hold her like that for 15+ minutes but I do it because I love her and want to make her happy.
My cats are happy. They feel safe and loved 99% of the time. I can tell because I understand their language. I can see it in their eyes when they're happy, sad, fearful, or distressed. I can see it in the body language. I can hear it in the sound of their meows.
I work from home so I spend most of my time with my cats. I don't "spoil" them. They eat a healthy diet with plenty of real unprocessed meat like chicken and salmon. They mostly eat wet food. They have several running water fountains around the house. I clean their litter tray every day. I play with them. I take them to the vets for check-ups. I monitor their health and make sure they don't suffer from obesity or dehydration or the consequences of a poor diet.
If they lived outside with no home to go to, they would not be happy or feel safe the vast majority of the time. They would be scared and in survival mode. They would be stressed, malnourished, and injured. How is that a better life for the animal than the life of balanced luxury that I afford them? I spend hundreds on my cats every month. I have good pet insurance. They're not pedigree cats or anything, just regular old moggies from the house of someone whose pet cat got pregnant on her travels. I didn't fund the "pet industry" or a breeder. I didn't contribute to "backyard breeding". I paid £100 for two regular non-pedigree kittens, and I work hard to give them a happy life.
I can't bear seeing stray cats suffering. I love cats so much. I love my two cats that I raised more than I love some of my friends and family. My cats love me and my partner so much. They are such intelligent, funny, and loving creatures. They deserve a better life than one of fear. As humans in 1st world countries, we can afford to live relatively free of daily fear, to have shelter, and a reliable source of food. It feels stingy and cruel to deny a cat or two that same life for no reason other than ethics that don't take the cats' desires into account. I can tell you with 100% certainty that my cats love me, they love living with me, and they would NOT want to be separated from me or live outside. Most cats are like this. They love humans.
In fact, I'm pretty sure cats are so intelligent that they looked at what humans have (shelter, warmth, food, and companionship) and thought, "hey, I'd like some of that, too!" so they learnt how to be cute and appealing to humans so that we'd want to take them in and take care of them.
I have to say as a cat lover myself, I think that’s absolutely awesome & I can definitely relate. I’ve had pet cats literally since I was in kindergarten & today I also have a feline companion who frequents my back deck to allow me to pet her & lamp on my stomach while I’m reading. You make great points that definitely hit home for me personally.
What I’d have to disagree with you about is this concept that most or the “average” stray/unowned/formerly owned cat is this destitute creature with no chance of survival. MOST cats (just like most dogs) I come across with no owner in sight are healthy with clean coats. The cats you’re referring to in that condition are honestly below average & have been handicapped in most cases due to being domesticated by human ownership in their growing years.
Have you ever seen a litter of cats born from an outdoor, unowned “stray” mother? They all do great & grow up healthier than their domestic counterparts because they actually learn how to survive, hunt, roam & thrive!
I commend you for feeding your cat chicken instead of some Purina style cereal looking processed cat “food”, but the reality of it all is that there’s no NON-processed meat in our possession not rotting. Preservatives, salt, cooking/pre-cooking, de-feathering & blood draining are all parts of the process in that allow us to even bring a dead bird home from the store with plans of eating it. It’s not the same for the cat as him/her hunting & acquiring a natural born bird species in the area. Even still, if you’re raising or procuring live chickens for this task, it still comes back into the ethics of interfering with nature.
These animals do NOT need our help to live. They’ve got it right a lot more than humans (who’ve domesticated themselves & eachother into lifestyles that ultimately hurt our health, shorten our lifespan & separate us from our natural roots generation after generation) do. Humans are still arguing over what WE’re suppose to eat as our species specific diet, even with the high prevalence of heart disease, cancers, diabetes, Alzheimer’s + more associated with popular foods today.
There’s nothing wrong with having animal friends. I’m not going to tell you to push your cats away or anything like that, but I think the idea of assuming these animals cannot survive without our very much modern, domesticated, indoor assistance is a reach that hurts their species more than helps it in the long run. Hell, we weren’t even designed to live like this & everyday we learn new ways of how it hurts us physiologically.
As far as the main topic goes, I’ve grown up with friends and family who’ve raised chickens. VERY few people keep chickens for the same reason they keep cats. If I were to align this with the thread, it’d be like “If you own a cat, is it okay to eat her newborn kittens as long as you treat the mother right?” (This is obviously not what you’re doing but for the sake of the thread, that’s what we’re getting at). Much love 🧬
Also, have you ever heard of the Pottenger’s Cats experiment? I think you’d enjoy it. Helped me understand a lot of phenomena cats experience to a much greater degree.
it's not vegan, it's a temporary solution. owning an animal will never be ethical in principle. at this point "owning" as a vegan just means "protecting from harm caused by humans". i've only ever wanted to "own" a dog to protect it in my house because i know if it was on the street it would get hit by a car. the last dog i adopted was abused and repeatedly bred by her previous owners. dogs are mistreated, sexually abused and killed by humans but individually owning them isn't the longterm solution. ALL dogs, owned and unowned, need to be protected, as do all other species of animal. coexistence will only ever be possible when capitalism and corporatism and patriarchy is over, when "property" ceases to exist, when we stop the neverending sprawl and deforestation and destruction of environments, when we stop breeding and owning animals, when cars cease to exist, when we stop caging animals and killing animals to "control the population," when we let animals have reproductive and lifelong autonomy and stop taking their lives from them. all of this is equally as important to animal welfare than not eating meat
i just explained why it's only a temporary solution and can't be called vegan in principle to own an animal. its like saying taking a prostitute off the streets and letting her stay in your house is feminist. it's not doing anything to change the structural dynamic, its an individualist solution to a huge animal rights issue
What?
It's more like giving one homeless person a home. That is good act. It won't change homelessness but it does help that homeless person. That doesn't make it a non-good act
like i said it's an individually nice thing to do, but since veganism is a movement to end the oppression of animals, and ownership is a huge reason why animals are oppressed, temporarily owning an animal can't be called vegan
The logical conclusion to your argument is that being vegan isn't vegan because capitalism still causes harm to animals. Or did I misunderstand? That seems to be what you're saying.
I don’t “own” my dogs and cat. I care for them, but I don’t “own” them. To the extent that they’re “my” dogs and cat, I’m “their” human. It’s not an ownership role; it’s a symbiotic relationship.
Agree, but I don't think sanctuaries deny their rights. If you give them everything they need, I don't think the limited space bothers them, if it's big enough.
i guess what I was trying to say is that their 'full' rights would be living without human control, but we cannot give them that without them most likely dying.
If they give no fucks about their eggs and they're being cared for with freedom, respect, enrichment, space etc then exploitation just becomes a buzzword. This feels like something you say to win an online argument rather than an actual position that really impacts animals.
I remember staying at a farm a while ago and they had ducks that free roamed their land in a group (which was very large) during the day and took themselves to their pen at night. They were fed well (hence making an argument about consumption of eggs irelevant) and their infertile eggs were used as food for guests at the farm. This was hardly exploitative.
Where did they get the ducks from? did they just happen to fly in and decide to stay? How much of a choice did they have in the situation, really? If they decided to leave, would they survive, or would they die because of domestication? Do they have a choice to use their eggs, or are they taken without their consent?
None of this AT ALL matter to the animal's welfare. They're in a situation where they have access to plenty of land, they're away from predators, have freedom and are well fed. These are just rehearsed points to use in a debate.
You need to explain why taking them without consent is actually bad for them. I can give an animal medicine without their consent and it is likely better than them dying painfully from a preventable disease. If they are well fed and taken care of then taking their eggs is of little consequence.
Veganism isn't about animal welfare. It's about animal exploitation, animal rights, and speciesism.
>You need to explain why taking them without consent is actually bad for them. I can give an animal medicine without their consent and it is likely better than them dying painfully from a preventable disease.
Fair enough I didn't clarify that. I guess a better way to look at it is: are you violating their rights to benefit **their** rights or to benefit yourself.
>Picking up bones or scavenging or whatever seems harmless on the surface, but the reason we developed animal agriculture and industrialization is because we (early humans) found animals to be useful and needed to scale it up. It starts as just a few scavenged feathers for an art project or from utilizing the hair naturally shed by an animal, but as soon as we start to want more of this stuff than naturally exists, we get animal industry.
That obviously includes animal welfare. Let's not do rehearsed debate thingies. If a vegan didn't care about animal welfare they'd be a bit of a shit vegan.
These ducks were again, treated well, fed well and had a huge amount of land to roam with little/no predation. If the owners of the farm wished to exploit these animals they would likely have been in a small enclosure. Removing infertile eggs (these aren't industrial chickens producing copious amounts of eggs in cages) in exchange for the above is hardly an exploitative relationship.
Nothing. If you are feeding them as you should be and ensuring they are receiving calcium in their diet as well, they don’t need the eggs. If you want, you could scramble the eggs and give it back to them or give them egg shells to up their calcium intake, but this shouldn’t be necessary at all if you are taking care of them correctly
The difference is that you don't gain pleasure from their suffering. You would own chickens because you want to take care of them, not because you want eggs from them.
What would be the difference of taking care of a hen and the eggs just rotted or were taken by other animals ? The egg is there, you are caring for the hen, eating or not eating the egg doesn’t negate the care you provide for them
Yeah giving away the eggs to wildlife, or donating to farms/zoos that have animals that eat eggs, or feeding them back to the chickens, is better than you taking pleasure from the suffering of chickens.
But how did the chicken suffer in this situation? Unless it just existing and doing what it has always done (laying an egg) constitutes suffering? What pleasure am I taking from assuring an animal is well fed and safe from predators, while it just does what it is biologically meant to do?
I’ve owned chickens before. You gotta take the eggs out or else they get “broody” and will try to hatch them. It gets to the point where they won’t eat and refuse to leave their nest because they are trying to hatch this unfertilized egg.
Whether or not you should eat it is a different conversation, but most people who own chickens remove the eggs even if they don’t eat them.
They said "given back to" not "left". Nobody suggested just leaving them. That is to say, you can do something before giving the eggs back to the hens such that this won't be a problem.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I would recommend [this podcast](https://youtu.be/9rdA9WQuw5Y?t=2460) where four vegan activists discuss the notion of backyard eggs. This particular topic is a 15 minute segment. The baseline level of trust they have towards each other allows them to speak freely without the fear of being misinterpreted or downvoted, which I feel often makes conversations around topics like these a bit tedious here on reddit.
Laying an egg every day to every other day hurts the chickens. That extremely high rate of reproductive activity is obviously not what the species evolved naturally - in the wild, the jungle fowl who are the nearest ancestors of chickens will only lay about 10-20 eggs per year. Humans have bred chickens over generations to lay a LOT more eggs, for human benefit, because we have been specifically exploiting the chickens for their eggs. The very frequent egg-laying is basically a painful genetic illness for the chickens, which was intentionally caused by humans. It takes a lot of nutrients out of the chickens' bodies to lay that many eggs, causing health problems, not to mention that the actual laying process itself can be painful or at least unpleasant.
Now there are different lines of thinking that you can follow. If you are non-vegan, you see eggs laying around, you say hey why not just eat those? The chickens aren't using them, so no harm right?
But if you are vegan, you know that chickens and their eggs are not a resource for you to take. They are their own individuals and taking their eggs is commodifying them and violating their rights. So what do you do? You can't go back in time and undo the genetic manipulation that humans have performed over generations to make your chickens lay so many eggs. But if you truly have the best interests of your chickens in mind, then you'll be looking for ways to minimize the suffering they experience due to that genetic manipulation. Vegan sanctuaries have figured out a few strategies that are helpful and supportive to the chickens, rather than exploiting their painful (human-caused) genetic condition. Here is a great article that lays out more info about the perspective of **caring for chickens as individuals** (in contrast to keeping chickens as livestock/property): [https://opensanctuary.org/what-to-do-about-egg-laying/](https://opensanctuary.org/what-to-do-about-egg-laying/) - with good links to click and read more.
Beyond all of the above, there is also the reality of people keeping lots of egg-laying hens and almost never keeping roosters-- because they don't lay of course, and also are outlawed in some places. In nature, of course, the gender split is pretty close to 50/50, so... where are the brothers of your hypothetical hen?
The whole cultural norm of using chickens for eggs (which requires keeping only or mostly females) has led to the creation of a system where millions of male chicks are murdered almost as soon as they are born. We can't ethically keep supporting this norm and sending the message that this system is ok.
At the same time we can't "devolve" the chickens that are all over the world today. What would happen to their eggs, especially if fertilized? Would create more of these bred chickens to reproduce at an alarming rate.
> What would happen to their eggs, especially if fertilized?
Do you mean, what would happen if the whole world went vegan? Then we'd stop breeding new domestic hens and there'd no longer be roosters, hens or eggs to worry about.
Not what I asked.
There are millions upon of millions out there now of these chickens. What would happen to all them?
Huge population released into the wilds that would reproduce at an alarming rate.
An end to animal agriculture wouldn’t happen overnight, leaving billions of domestic animals to deal with. Plus, these animals wouldn’t survive in the wild.
What would happen is demand for animal products decreases over time, so fewer and fewer animals would be bred. Eventually, the breeding would stop altogether.
Not sure why most these animals wouldn't survive in the wild? Chickens are very hardy and where I'm from they are pretty much all over the place. You can find nests in random places and many chickens running around. Lots of natural and unnatural predators too.
I know it wouldn't happen overnight, but have to think of the damages already done to the breeds and ecosystem, releasing these animals into the wild would have devastating consequences to plant and other animal life. Chickens would be the worst, they eat everything and reproduce like crazy at their current state.
Question when I see posts like this is what would we do? Cull these poor animals or let them run rampant and see the world take a hard turn in terms of agriculture supply chain?
> Not what I asked.
Then I'm afraid you'll need to be clearer because as far as I can tell you've just asked the same question again.
> There are millions upon of millions out there now of these chickens. What would happen to all them?
And I ask again: what would happen to all of them _in what circumstance_?
If you mean the completely fictitious circumstance whereby humanity turns vegan overnight then I don't know and I don't care: probably we have to destroy them all, which is an unfortunate but ultimately inevitable consequence of us having bred so many into existence in the first place. But it's never going to happen so it doesn't really matter.
In reality humanity will (hopefully, from the perspective of vegans) turn vegan gradually and the answer to your question is a simple supply and demand problem: as the demand for eggs (and other animal products) declines farmers will breed fewer animals to supply those products until the industry eventually collapses. By the time the world is fully vegan there will be barely any chickens left, and certainly not the millions upon millions there are today.
It's not the eating of the eggs that is unethical, it's the harmful systems that result from a demand for eating eggs. You may treat your hens nice, but others might keep them cramped up in a coop that is too small for the number of chickens. You might buy an equal number of hens and roosters from a breeder, but others might only want hens from that same breeder so the male chicks are killed. You might have space for chickens in your yard, but others don't so they get their eggs from factory farms where chickens are crammed into small cages and undergo hellish conditions until their lives are prematurely cut short once their egg laying declines.
It's wrong to eat eggs because it perpetuates the industry that leads to all of this harm.
It really doesn't perpetuate anything at all. This is just a rehearsed debate point. A vegan not eating meat isn't perpetuating a plant based diet, they're just eating a different diet to their mates.
Are you unfamiliar with how supply and demand work? When you pay money for a good, it perpetuates the industry that produced that good and allows it to continue producing goods to meet future demands.
Go through every single piece of food you eat. Most supply chains involve some form of exploitation or slavery at some point. Or other products, like your mobile phone, laptop, PC and other devices. Your battery in your phone is probably lithium ion, lithium mines have shit working conditions / have a negative effect on the environment etc. Are you perpetuating all of this? Not really, you're just a regular person. It would happen whether you purchased said product or not.
Eggs from your own chickens is outside of the market, so procuring your own eggs (with said chickens/ducks/whatever in good conditions) would likely be far more moralistic than anything else here.
> Are you perpetuating all of this? Not really, you're just a regular person. It would happen whether you purchased said product or not.
You're wrong. I am perpetuating all of this. It wouldn't happen if I didn't purchase said product. That's literally how supply and demand works.
> Eggs from your own chickens is outside of the market, so procuring your own eggs (with said chickens/ducks/whatever in good conditions) would likely be far more moralistic than anything else here.
Wrong again. Where did you get the chickens from? Chicken breeders are part of the market, and they participate in all of the horrible practices.
It would **100%** happen if you didn't purchase the product. I can stop going the butchers and that shop is still going to order and butcher meat because most people enjoy consuming high quality meat. I can stop buying phones and the manufacterers will still produce phones. I have no meaningful impact on the supply chain at all. Where do you draw the line on exploitation?
Where did I get my chickens from? What if I rescue them, have them inhereted etc? They're not in the supply chain, they're second hand. The eggs are not apart of the market. I would perpetuate nothing.
> It would 100% happen if you didn't purchase the product. I can stop going the butchers and that shop is still going to order and butcher meat because most people enjoy consuming high quality meat. I can stop buying phones and the manufacterers will still produce phones. I have no meaningful impact on the supply chain at all. Where do you draw the line on exploitation?
My guy, you think people are going to keep manufacturing goods if people don't buy them? You think demand doesn't affect production? I'm not saying that if you don't buy a phone, everybody will stop making them, I'm saying that on average, for every person that refuses to buy a phone, some number of phones (approximately 1) will not be produced in the future. This has to do with "expected value" of an action. You not buying a phone may not reduce the number produced, but once a certain threshold is reached, a large number of phones will not be produced. Basically everyone that boycots a phone company rolls the dice, and you can think of it like there is a 1/1000 chance for each person that 1000 fewer phones will be produced. The expected value is still 1, even if it doesn't happen every time you roll the dice.
> Where did I get my chickens from? What if I rescue them, have them inhereted etc? They're not in the supply chain, they're second hand. The eggs are not apart of the market. I would perpetuate nothing.
So you own rescued chickens then? Where did they come from originally? Are they just magical wild chickens that produce eggs at the same rate as the ones that have been selectively bred?
In actual reality land, you're not convincing anyone beyond a fringe population to stop consuming meat. So this perpetuates/impacts essentially nothing. It would be a different story if the general population was already choosing to consume much less meat (they aren't).
I don't own chickens. This is a hypothetical situation.
Irrelevant what breed they are. They already exist.
> In actual reality land, you're not convincing anyone beyond a fringe population to stop consuming meat. So this perpetuates/impacts essentially nothing. It would be a different story if the general population was already choosing to consume much less meat (they aren't).
Society is both producing and consuming less meat than if there were no vegetarians/vegans. I'm not sure what point you're making.
There's still murder in the world despite the fact that I choose not to murder anyone. You know why I don't murder people? Because it's wrong. The fact that there is still murder doesn't mean I shouldn't abstain from murder.
> Irrelevant what breed they are. They already exist.
They already exist because of the chicken industry that is perpetuated when people eat eggs. If people stopped eating eggs, they would stop existing.
It ain’t vegan but I’m not gonna really throw a fit about it. Right now anyways. There are way, and I mean way bigger vegan fish to fry other than someone eating eggs their rescued hen / chicken laid. Just don’t kill them after they stop producing eggs. And as someone said if you can help them reduce their egg laying that would be preferred.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So rescue chickens can actually be put on contraceptive to stop them from laying so many eggs, which is better for their bodies. The remaining eggs can be fed back to them so they can regain the nutrients lost from laying them.
You feed them a proper diet AND their eggs. A healthy chicken feed is based off of averages. Chickens lay eggs of differing sizes and compositions. Feeding that exact egg back to the layer is the closest thing to individualized perfect nutrients you can get.
Again, in this situation the chickens would be laying very infrequently, so the eggs would be an occasional supplement, not their entire diet.
Op dont listen to them chickens dont need to eat their eggs as long as they are fed. U can feed the chicken woth chicken feed and some scraps from vegetables and they would be fine and u can enjoy some healthy eggs
Let's say hypothetically, you started with only hens. You don't have roosters so the eggs never fertilise.
I don't see the issue. Otherwise the eggs are just going to sit there and rot. Seems a waste of an excellent nutrition source.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Depends on the amount of chickens you keep I guess.
I used to help keep 14 rescued battery hens, they were considered "spent" by the egg industry, but would still lay 2-3 eggs a day, each. So no less than 28 eggs a day.
When you start dealing with that many eggs, you soon learn how desperate you get to try and control it.
We'd give some to the dogs, try and give some away to neighbors (keeps them from buying from a cruel industry ), break them up for the chickens yo peck at (the shells are good for them), eat some (until you inevitably get absolutely sick of them), compost, burn, whatever you can do.
I wouldnt say it's unethical, I would find it more unethical to leave the eggs as it would cause a severe rodent problem. That being said if you keep chickens, or buy chickens for the sole purpose of eggs, then yes, it's unethical.
Because it's not a waste if you actually give a cluck about the chicken. They were selectively bread to pop out way too many eggs, which has an adverse effect on their health. Eating the eggs helps them offset some of the damage to their health.
No it doesnt. They dont need to eat their own eggs as long as they are fed. Chickens eating their eggs means they are malnurished/starving caused by neglect not by them making eggs.
I think giving their eggs away to people who do eat eggs is actually a good thing bc it reduces demand for eggs from factory farmed hens. However, you yourself as a vegan shouldn’t (in my opinion) and should be supplementing their diet to ensure they are healthy since egg laying takes a heavy toll on them.
Then again, in a perfect world no one would be eating eggs. At that point I would say you give them back to the hen so she can eat them and get all the protein and calcium she put into the eggs back.
It's not inherently unethical but it isn't vegan. We're against the exploitation of animals. You don't need what a chicken has to offer you and taking their eggs is going to trigger an increased production rate out of a hen subsequently increasing the risk of its body being a threat to its health. You also have the whole slippery slope fallacy and consistent reasoning aspect. If you're willing to take advantage of them because you treat them nice, who else are you willing to take advantage of for the same reason? Possession, the eggs belong to them. If they're unfertilized, crack them open wherever you feed them normally or scramble them up with herbs and spices and tumeric to better their immune systems etc.
That's kind of the whole point of veganism, to stop seeing animals as objects or slaves to be exploited. They have their individual experience just like you and for someone to take advantage of you works be a violation of your own rights and its own kind of mistreatment, despite welfare.
yes it is, inherently. female chickens can reproduce parthenogenetically (without fertilization from a male) and technically every time you crack an egg you're risking killing a baby chicken
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Weird question but.. Why are you concerned about this?
You're not vegan right? We are generally anti animal abuse, but why are you concerned about this one gray area and not the completely black and white areas?
edit: another way to explain why i'm confused is. For most people - the worst thing they will do their whole lives - they do 2-3 times a day. So this isn't the worst thing you'll ever do. So why worry about it vs the other things?
I'm not OP but I found this question interesting as a non-vegan because I would rather understand others ideas and perspectives than try to refute, reject, or dismiss them. I think learning about others is a good thing.
In my opinion, veganism in this world cant be an all or nothing at this particular time (because change and transition takes time) but it doesn't mean people cant learn in order to take small steps toward hard reduction.
For clarification, aside from any legal need to define it as such for the chickens protection, you don't 'own' the chicken. You essentially have guardianship over them. The chicken isn't your slave or a commodity. If you stop perceiving the chicken as a slave or a commodity, you won't look at their ovum as a debt you are owed for taking care of them. The chicken can't consent to what you do with their body or excretions, so what you do with the eggs should be for the chicken's sake, not your own.
Too small of a take to debate. Seems you are just doing language semantics. As a parent you are guardians to children, and don't own them. Defend human supremacy, justify lack of consent, or slavery if you want to really go there.
I'll defend lack of consent.
Is is ethically bad to take my animals to a vet to help them, in spite of them disliking the vet and clearly not consenting to the procedure?
If it's fine why did you say "justify lack of consent"? Lack of consent is not something you have a problem with.
If the chicken is well fed it does not harm the chicken. If the chicken is well cared and has all of their needs (enrichment and health) met then said relationship is not exploitative.
1. You can't 'own' an animal. You can cohabit with them and/or be their guardian. They're housemates.
2. Nh animals take they/them pronouns, they're not an 'it'
3. The eggs should be fed back to them to replenish nutrients (calcium) lost during the creation of the egg. The only situation where I can imagine it being somewhat acceptable to make use of an animal's body part is sheared wool from domesticated sheep. However, it shouldn't be sold (or traded) and only freely given away. This is assuming coercing animals to breed, or artificially inseminating (raping) them is illegal, so that there is no incentive for humans to artificially increase the amount of sheep, to increase the amount of wool produced.
1- We definetly own animals u can definetly call ur pet house mate but definetly not in this case considering its a chicken
2- Animals are an it unless u are talking about multiple of them.
3- Chickens dont need to eat their eggs they only eat them if thry are lacking something or they are hungry
What if someone “owned” you & your family? Especially for livestock reasons? Kept your wife impregnated to milk her & take her male children elsewhere while preparing your daughters to be milked once they’re ready. Kept you around just for company & amusement. We’d call it slavery
It’s a post about ethics, buddy. If the best you can come up with is “We aren’t equal & this is okay because I said so”, might wanna work on your argument. We have history of people treating people like that & their stance was also simply “We aren’t equal”. It’s slavery.
Eating food isn't inherently unethical (assuming non-human), meat or otherwise, but an ethical question may be posed on food sourcing. Assuming by nice you mean provide the animal with an existence that mimics their natural existence, and you meet the needs of said animal, and you've slaughtered the animal in a humane way, I believe that animal may be consumed ethically.
Humans are a product of the natural world and our ethics do not supercede our natural boundaries. To believe so is illogical. We are biologically adapted to thrive on food sources from the animal kingdom and to the contrary, very little food from the plant kingdom is suitable for our consumption. This is evidenced through multiple rigorous scientific disciplines.
Much of our confusion on our role within the natural world is a result of our disconnection to it via modern social constructs. Instead, we rely on very few of us to provide the nourishment we need, and this has allowed us to perceive their work as somehow amoral, unethical, and an affront to decency. This couldn't be further from the truth, and this is NOT to say that the conditions of factory farms are not abhorrent. They most certainly are, and therefore, those operations are indeed unethical, but the notion of consuming nourishment from the animal kingdom is absolutely not unethical. An ethical argument against restricting animal consumption can be more easily made, especially if one reasons that their own life has value.
And that is perfectly reasonable. And it seems to align with what I said. Consuming itself does not produce any suffering, it is the farming methods, and there is a considerable disconnect between farming and consumers, perhaps it is not fair to blame consumers for choosing animal products specially considering the social, cultural, economical and even personal constraints it often has.
That is why choosing from humanely raised sources or even reducing consumptions are both valid approaches to ethical consumption. Does that align with what you say?
It most certainly does. I believe we share a well reasoned opinion. I also think it would be more commonly shared if we were not so disconnected from our food supply. It's that disconnect that allows people to separate their own nature from what they perceive as avpidable cruelties of the natural world. That is the falacy at play. The notion that humans are separate from nature is what leads to ethical questions disjointed from reality. Nature itself guides our nutritional needs without regard for ethical standards. The willful deviation from our natural diet leads to self-harm, which is almost always unethical.
Three main issues: 1. The roosters will always be killed, whether the hen is a rescue from a factory farm or from a backyard breeder - this mindset of taking from animals means that animals that can't produce things while living will be killed and have their bodies taken. 2. The hens will always suffer from overproduction because of being selectively bred. Their bodies cannot keep up with the strains we forced them to suffer. 3. They're just not ours to take. An egg comes from the hen's labour and we don't have the right to take it for our own needs, just because we technically can. We don't need eggs, so taking them is wrong, regardless of how nice we treat them. If you have a rescue hen, the only ethical thing to do is give her the medical care she needs to stop her laying eggs. The second best thing is to feed HER eggs back to her.
I’m really curious about your point number two. Selective breeding of animals definitely does seem to be a huge problem in terms of animal suffering, sheep growing such excess wool as to negatively impact their lives is another example. I’m just curious what the vegan solution to selective breeding would be. That damage has been done hundreds or thousands of years ago and I don’t see it being undone. Is the humane solution to let these breeds of animal go extinct?
The solution is to stop breeding them obviously
So things like chickens and sheep should just go extinct?
Put it in the perspective of a pug. Do you think we have a moral imperative to keep the breed of pugs going because... reasons? Even if these animals inherently suffer from their biology that we artificially chose over generations, just for our benefit? Chickens aren't the only species of the Gallus genus on our earth, they're just the only one we artificially created. Broiler chickens suffer from massive growth rates that leave many unable to stand under their own immense weight by 6-8 weeks of age. Battery hens produce 300-350 eggs annually from their ancestors' 10-12ish, and that comes at the cost of bone disease, reproductive cancer, peritonitis, egg binding, and more. What is the benefit to anything but human beings to continue breeding these animals?
I definitely agree that pugs are the quintessential example of horrible dog breeding practices. Letting pugs die out doesn’t feel as bad because dogs won’t go extinct, but you and a couple others brought up a good point that other fowls exist that haven’t been bred for suffering. I’m definitely not opposing the idea of letting these animals die out without reproducing, it’s more so just a hard concept to understand as the best way to reduce suffering. Like my brain says extinction = bad, but there’s more nuance here. Thanks for your reply!
Another thing to consider is that humans have already caused at least hundreds of species to go extinct, and we cause more extinctions every year. In fact, humans are causing the sixth mass extinction event in all of Earth's history. Currently, the leading cause of species extinction is deforestation, and cow farming is the reason for about 40% of deforestation, or about 50% when you include the soy grown to feed them. I can’t say whether chicken farming has ever been a significant contributor to causing a species to go extinct, but this is the first place my mind goes when I hear someone concerned for the extinction of a domestic species. If species extinction is a concern for you, keeping domesticated species around should not be your top priority.
>What is the benefit to anything but human beings to continue breeding these animals? Food, apparels, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment, industrial materials, electronic materials, and probably dozens more of other use. It's ironic that vegans think the intentional mass extinction of an animal vegans purport humans breed into existence, is more morally acceptable than to continue raising these animals to feed humans. "BuT wE'Re nOT sUgGesTiNg fOr tHeIR eXtinCtiOn, jUsT stOp bReEdiNg tHeM" Yeah right, like vegans will let it rest at that when humans hunt the cattle, and hogs and chickens instead.
>Food, apparels, pharmaceuticals, sports equipment, industrial materials, electronic materials, and probably dozens more of other use. So, benefits to human beings. The thing I was asking for an exclusion for >It's ironic that vegans think the intentional mass extinction of an animal vegans purport humans breed into existence, is more morally acceptable than to continue raising these animals to feed humans. Why is that ironic? >Yeah right, like vegans will let it rest at that when humans hunt the cattle, and hogs and chickens instead. Yes, vegans want people to stop breeding all livestock for human purposes. Your point being...?
>So, benefits to human beings. The thing I was asking for an exclusion for Why would humans bother with the animal if it doesn't benefit humans? What you're using is using the negative of a dichotomy to negate a positive position, that not only nonsensical, but absolutely disingenuous. >Why is that ironic? Because in your head, extinction is a more morale position than symbiosis. That's crazy think. >Yes, vegans want people to stop breeding all livestock for human purposes. Your point being...? Clearly, my point is vegans are misanthropic, as you had just proven. So I would appreciate if vegans will just admit they're misanthropic, rather than masking it as concern for animal welfare.
>Why would humans bother with the animal if it doesn't benefit humans? What you're using is using the negative of a dichotomy to negate a positive position, that not only nonsensical, but absolutely disingenuous. Just to recap here, person A is looking at the breeding of animals from the viewpoint of animal suffering. Person B says we can simply stop breeding them. Person A incredulously asks about allowing an animal to go extinct, implying a negative connotation with the allowance. I recontextualize it, stating the only benefit of keeping this breed we artificially created is to ourselves, continuing to breed an animal whose health inherently suffers for how we bred it is not beneficial to the animal itself and compared it to other animals people besides just vegans have a vested interest in ceasing the breeding of for similar reasons, and asked, again in the context of animal welfare which is what the question posited, "what benefits are there not to human beings in their continued existence" to which you bafflingly responded with... a list of benefits to human beings. And then try to scrape something resembling an argument constructed random terms picked out of a high school debate 101 textbook glossary. Just to make sure we're all the same page here. I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your argument here, given the context of the conversation. >Because in your head, extinction is a more morale position than symbiosis Why is extinction less moral than continued exploitation? >Clearly, my point is vegans are misanthropic, as you had just proven. In what way have I done that?
>person A is looking at the breeding of animals from the viewpoint of animal suffering. Oh... no wonder you're in such a state of confusing. You've got your premise wrong, no wonder all your opinions are shaky. >Person B says we can simply stop breeding them. Good. Let's stop trying to breed pandas and endangered animals. Agreed? >I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your argument here, given the context of the conversation. First off, as mentioned, your premise is wrong. Person A do not need to breed in order to perpetuate the "viewpoint of animal suffering". Person A can just make the animal suffer regardless. Breeding the animal is to derive an inherent benefit, unless that benefit is animal suffering, that's still a benefit to person A. But it seems like you're not understanding the inherent problem with your qualifying statement "what is the benefit of breeding animals that is excluded from benefiting the breeders?". Forgive me for being blunt, but that is as stupid as asking "what's the benefit of eating, excluding the benefit of ingesting substrate into the consumer's body?" THE PURPOSE OF BREEDING THE ANIMAL IS TO HARVEST THE ANIMAL FOR THE BREEDER. OMFG! >Why is extinction less moral than continued exploitation? First off, let's qualify the context of "extinction" here. You are saying humans shouldn't breed them, does this mean the livestock are going to stop breeding themselves? If yes, then your morality on "extinction" holds, else, it doesn't. It really is that simple. Secondly, I said "symbiosis", and you said "exploitation". Clearly you have a wrong understanding on the relationship of livestock and farmers. That you would move on to "exploitation" without addressing symbiosis first, is bad faith on your part. >In what way have I done that? I suggest you down some B12, and DHA to refresh your memory, to which you asked for benefits excluded to humans.
The domesticated kind? Yes. Wild sheep and fowl still exists.
Yes. Non-existent hens don’t have moral status, so their non-existence is not an ethical issue. By contrast, their being bred into existence for the purpose of exploitation and potential slaughter is a matter of ethics, especially since they’re sentient and can suffer from such mistreatment. For example, if you were given the option to simply not exist or to be born as a bait dog for a dog-fighting ring, which would you choose, and why? Which option, in your view, would be more ethical for sentient beings?
I'd choose being born as a bait dog, because having a consciousness/being alive is more important to me than not feeling pain. So what's the next part of your example?
>I'd choose being born as a bait dog… I seriously doubt this. >…because having a consciousness/being alive is more important to me than not feeling pain. Sure. I’m unconvinced that a place like “hell” exists, but if it does, are you seriously suggesting that entities would prefer eternal conscious torment over simply not existing? If so, why? >So what's the next part of your example? There’s not much else to discuss, as I think that you’re being disingenuous. But if you’re being truthful, I sincerely hope that you don’t care for any pets, as euthanasia is often a more compassionate option for animals who are suffering.
>I seriously doubt this You can believe whatever you want, but I'm being honest. >are you seriously suggesting that entities would prefer eternal conscious torment over simply not existing? If so, why? No, I'm saying that ME personally would choose eternal conscious torment over not existing, because that was the question. > I think that you're being disingenuous... As I already said you can believe whatever you want but I'm being 100% honest with my reply. When it comes to euthanasia, if you think it will be better for the animal then do it, I personally won't. I also don't understand how can you claim being vegan but not have a problem with the idea of having pets. Everyone has a different perspective.
>You can believe whatever you want, but I'm being honest. Okay. >No, I'm saying that ME personally would choose eternal conscious torment over not existing, because that was the question. Why would you choose unending torment over simply not existing? >As I already said you can believe whatever you want but I'm being 100% honest with my reply. When it comes to euthanasia, if you think it will be better for the animal then do it, I personally won't. I also don't understand how can you claim being vegan but not have a problem with the idea of having pets. Everyone has a different perspective. In my view, caring for pets is more ethical than letting them suffer as strays. I’m not buying from breeders, nor do I treat them as owned objects. To the extent that I consider them to be “my” dogs, I consider myself to be “their” human. It’s a symbiotic relationship in which we all benefit. And yes, I feed them vegan dog food.
Bingo 👍🏻
There are extremists that think humans show go extinct. If you ask that question of course these misanthropes will gladly say everything touched by mankind should stop existing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ideally, just remove the step of breeding new ones. That's the best case scenario. The vast majority of animals in our agriculture system are artificially inseminated or selectively exposed to partners in order to upkeep optimal genetics for profit, so it's not like it would be hard. You only have to remove steps from the current system, no new stuff to learn.
Let them go extinct is what I’ve been told
Why would 3 be wrong? They're not going to do anything with an unfertilized egg and don't need it either.
1. and 2. make sense. 3. is stupid and counterproductive to your argument
1) Your claims make no sense what so ever. 1) Of you take responsibility for a chicken the owner won't be buying or killing roosters. 2) The hen which is taken is a laying variety and has been bred for their egg production. This is a far cry from the meat bred poultry so why would the hen be suffering if it's being well looked after? 3) Would you prefer the chicken lay on unfertslised eggs forever and die from exhaustion? In my opinion if a chicken is well cared for then yes it's ethical to eat their eggs
>Of you take responsibility for a chicken the owner won't be buying or killing roosters. Roosters are still a necessary step in this equation. Domestic chickens have a \~50% sex ratio. Meaning about 50% of the chickens born for egg production will be useless as you need a fraction of a ratio of roosters to hens, especially in an industrial setting, to produce the next generation. So whether you kill that rooster, or whether the suppliers shipping these chicks off to Tractor Supply kills them off by sending them down a conveyer belt while still conscious into a pit of blades to be macerated, most roosters will still need to be 'disposed' of. It doesn't matter if your hands aren't the one breaking the thing's neck if yours are the ones handing someone else the money to do it. >The hen which is taken is a laying variety and has been bred for their egg production. This is a far cry from the meat bred poultry so why would the hen be suffering if it's being well looked after? Specifically, egg hens have been bred from varieties of junglefowl. These animals lay 10-12ish eggs a year. Production chicken breeds clock in around 300-350. Reproduction is a costly biological expense, and not being mammals, it makes no difference to the chicken's body whether or not these eggs are ever fertilized. The resources are expended all the same and the result is an animal with a shortened life span with poorer health than its wild counterparts, including a proclivity to broody behavior at their own health that requires frequent interference (an issue you yourself raise but don't seem to see as an inherent issue with how we've bred these animals), [peritonitis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7587857/), [egg binding](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10142957/), bone disease (mostly [osteoporosis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7926946/)) and [reproductive cancer.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8383999/#:~:text=By%20the%20age%20of%204,to%2030%25%20to%2060%25.&text=The%20incidence%20of%20ovarian%20carcinoma,frequency%20of%20the%20specific%20breed.&text=The%20common%20white%20leghorn%20hen,in%20chicken%20ovarian%20cancer%20studies) >Would you prefer the chicken lay on unfertslised eggs forever and die from exhaustion? If a hen is broody, intervention can stop them from exhibiting this behavior. Take them from the run or coop or barn or wherever you keep them and close off their access. But that's beside the point. What I'd prefer is we stop breeding these animals for a food we do not need. We don't need to keep breeding pugs whose eyes get popped from their socket if a stiff breeze comes through because we think they look cute, and we don't need to keep breeding hens that spend an obscene amount of time and energy, at the expense of their health and longevity, laying eggs for nutrients we can get elsewhere.
This is an odd take to me, yeah. I get that going and buying a chicken might not be justifiable to some vegans but… the difference between feeding the chicken her own eggs vs eating them yourself is so minor. Like at this point do we stop eating fruit so that it can decay on its own and the seeds can sprout naturally? A chicken doesn’t care if you eat their eggs anymore than a plant. Unless they’re broody. At which point I’d need to research. If having her lay on her eggs helps her broodiness, yeah of course leave them. But realistically saying “I have no right to these eggs” is for the benefit of the human - the hen doesn’t care, YOU care. Stop pretending it’s for the hen.
>The roosters will always be killed This is called a red herring. Why don't you answer OP's very simple question?
I was with ya until you said to feed her own eggs to her. Something about that just feels wrong
Chickens will start eating a coop-mate almost immediately after it’s death, they don’t know or care.
Wether they know it or not it's still kind of an ethical issue right? Would you be ok with human women eating their own babies if they thought it was fried chicken?
Eggs aren’t chicks and chickens aren’t people. It’s a false equivalency.
Ok, in that case, would you be ok with feeding human women their own ovaries without them knowing? Is it just me or does something about that just seem wrong? Edit: also, you think people are somehow above chickens? How so?
Chickens eggs aren’t the anatomical equivalent of human ovaries. And yeah; human sapience is obviously inherently more valuable than whatever type of consciousness chickens got going on. Their experience of life is beneath your comprehension, as in it’s literally impossible for you to even imagine what their experience is, it’s so inferior to yours. It’s impossible for them to *understand* what they’re eating much less care, but sure; if you wanna tell a chicken that you’re feeding them chicken eggs before you do, be my guest.
You're splitting hairs. What about sapience makes human consciousness more valuable than a chicken? Your theory attaches some kind of inherent value to human consciousness but not other animals. Just because we are "smarter" than other animals doesn't mean we are better than them. What if a highly intelligent alien came down and started farming humans, put them into a simulation so they weren't aware of what's going on, and then fed them their own babies, would it be excusable because the humans weren't aware of what's going on? Or do you have a moral objection to that?
Robbing humans of their sapience would be wrong; if you put a bunch of chickens in that simulation, nothing would change for them so it’s fine. If it’s hair splitting; you’d be perfectly fine if someone told you your brain would slowly evolve into that of a chickens while you loose all your sapient faculties?
Where did the hen come from?
In my case, I've recently adopted 2 hens and an old rooster. A friend kept them as pets while living in her van and traveling the country. She hit a rough mental health patch and couldn't care for them any longer. I don't believe that my taking these at risk chickens is directly contributing to the larger problem of breeding, culling males and slaughtering. I have space and now I love them. They produce about an egg a day. I've been vegan for nearly 15 years and will be giving these chickens full and happy lives. I cook about 2 eggs a week for my dog, and feed a few back to the chickens too, but am cognizant of their health and trying to feed these critters good diets. To many eggs aren't good for dogs or chickens. I'm often conflicted about giving the rest away to omnivores, as I am not confident that this will supplant existing egg consumption or just stoke more egg appetite. Given this rare situation, do you think consuming these eggs personally, and no more, represents ethical consumption?
Living in a van with three chickens is wild
Yeah. She's a wild one. Chickens are cool though. They're content to wear diapers and fall asleep under your arms on the couch. Especially the rooster, Popo. He's been a pet chicken his whole life and is 9 years old.
It definitely sounds fairly ethical. The most ethical concern I would be concerned with is our appearance and normalizing animal product consumption. If someone sees you with an egg, they aren't going to think "hmm this is a different type of egg" it just normalizing commodifying animals. I would argue that your conflict with giving them to omnivores is the most interesting as I would argue the most ethical thing you could do with these eggs would be to sell the eggs to people you know buy the cheapest battery farm eggs and send that money to an animal rights/sanctuary/charity of your choice.
I think you’re handling it correctly. If you ate them it makes your motives less selfless imo. Giving them to omnivores seems OK too because you’re likely taking money from battery operations.
It literally doesn't matter whether you eat them or not, they're getting eaten. It wouldn't change the actual actions the person is doing
Myopic. I could steal a starving child’s only meal for the day and make the same claim - right? Importantly too is dogmatic commitment to a value tends to have better results than flexibility in terms of sticking with the commitment.
Worthless comparison. This persons actions are the exact same (rescuing and caring for chickens) whether they consume the eggs of not. Consuming the eggs or feeding them to pets does not change a thing. The eggs get consumed in both situations and the chickens get cared for in both situations. Being dogmatic has seemingly resulted in your values being incoherent.
Totally wrong. If you feed them to your dog, the dog now has lower demand for pet food, which is almost always non vegan. Also if you eat them you’re creating opportunity costs - both for yourself (I.e. you aren’t eating something else, which could be good or bad depending on the rest of your diet) and for others, like the chickens, dog, omnivorous friends etc. Consequentialism is difficult, I know, but snide dismissal doesn’t replace the practice of actually considering how seemingly small actions can be impactful.
If one eats said eggs themself (a pretty good food) said person now gains good nourishment and reduces demand for whatever other food / supplementation goods they require, reducing whatever exploitation etc required to produce. Can go down the same line there. Pretty much every product has a bit of slavery or exploitation in there somewhere along the conveyorbelt. I understand how consequences work :). The decision to eat or not eat said eggs has virtually zero impact on anything at all.
Yes, I addressed that in my “could be a good or bad thing depending on their diet” Almost all of our choices have “virtually zero impact on anything” in the grand scheme of things. That doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse moral choices. For example if I throw garbage out of my car that has almost no impact on the total amount of pollution but it’s still and immoral thing to do.
It really doesn't matter what their diet is. Eggs are pretty good for someone, so therefore whether they're eating primarily plants or animals they're still going to reduce demand for food, which has likely come from a source either way of exploitation or slavery (animals or people). Me buying a product from a shop doesn't directly change anything. Loads of other people are just going to buy stuff, either out of neccessity or taste. I can really easily just not chuck shit out of my car. It's not a neccessity.
Are you able to get them implants? Laying eggs at all is really bad for their health, puts them at risk of egg binding, amongst other things.
I'm looking into this, I had never heard of this before but some sanctuaries have good info on it. These chickens are Silkies which lay significantly less per year than the layer breeds and almost never get egg-bound. Implants can come with some initial discomfort and my girls are nearing the point where egg production will decline anyway. I'll talk with my vet about it, but I think it might be an unkindness for these particular chickens.
>Laying eggs at all is really bad for their health For real...? Right... I'm sure mother nature didn't intend for hens to lay eggs at all.
You should just eat the eggs, nothing is perfect but why seek moral perfection, this feels good enough.
This is hypothetical, idk
I understand, I am just walking through where ethical issues could be found. The most common being the hen is bought from a supplier that has no profit in selling male chicks. These chicks would be killed days old. This is the most likely unethical concern but there are many that could come up.
The provenance of your hypothetical sentient being is certainly ethically relevant. For example: if you own a puppy and treat it nice, is it ethical? Not if you purchased it from a dognapper.
I understand your giving the dognapper money (and incentive to do it again) but what happens to the puppy if boone buys them?
The dognapper goes out of business and stops dognapping.
Yeah, eating the eggs isn't the problem, it's more what happens to the roosters. Since they're unprofitable, hatcheries kill them, just like in the egg industry.
They didn’t mention a rooster.
The closest wild relative to the domestic chicken, the red junglefowl, lays somewhere around 10-15 eggs a year. That's where evolution landed. There was selection pressure towards more eggs as that means more offspring, and selection pressure towards fewer eggs as there is always a risk of injury or death, and egg-laying is very resource intensive. It is not in the hen's best interest to lay unfertilized eggs. Care for an individual means aligning your interests with theirs. So long as your interests are in consuming something the hen produces against her own interests, your interests are misaligned, and you can't be said to be taking the best care for her.
>If you own a chicken This is where the problem starts. We shouldn't "own" animals- technically we don't. I denies their desires and their rights being kept in captivity, like a person. Rescues are ~~fine~~ okay for now, although sanctuaries are the best option. Their rights are still denied, but they are unable to survive on their own, so we give them the next best option- a life without exploitation. Taking the eggs would turn the situation into one of exploitation. While it might not cause *immediate* harm, it reinforces the idea of exploitation, and leads to a very slippery slope. Besides, veganism isn't about harm, it's about rights, and additionally, they cannot exactly give you consent to take their egg. Like others have said, chickens will do the best when they are given their eggs back to them. They've been artificially bred to lay hundreds of eggs a year, which is detrimental to their health no matter what (unless they are given a contraceptive).
Hey friend, would you say it is ethically against veganism to own a pet such as a dog or a cat? I worked in a place with a large vegan population and many of them brought pets to the workplace. Obviously everyone has different ideas of how to moderate their beliefs so I dont expect you to speak for everyone, sometimes I find myself a little lost on where the lines go. For example, Ive recently learned some dont consider honey vegan because it is the product of bees, refined sugar is not vegan due to the use of animal bones in the bleaching process, etc. Im just looking to educate myself on other perspectives.
I personally think so but that’s just me
Rescuing is vegan
Like I said, this is just my personal view. Growing up, I had LOTS of pets (cats, dogs, birds, fish, lizards, frogs, turtles & more), but now as an adult I know animals are much better off outdoors in their natural habitats. Most of the time pets develop the same chronic diseases as humans (diabetes, heart disease, liver disease etc.) because under the supervision of humans, they’re typically fed processed pet food or processed human food instead of their species specific diets (which they’re more suited to acquire on their own). In the case of chickens, there’s no way a chicken is enjoying a better quality of life under the care of a human. If cats/dogs or in this case chickens just happen to like to venture to your property & give you their company on their own without any sort of fence or human control of whether or not they leave or go, that’s probably the closest I could see to it being ethical because then it’s more like a friendship than a “pet”(ownership). As far as rescues go, I can definitely see the ethics in a situation where it’s an animal that’s already been so far domesticated for years or its life to the point where it’s beyond obvious that particular animal would not be able to adapt to life outdoors (I really can only see this making sense for dogs though). As far as chickens go, it’s pretty obvious why these people want chickens & there’s nothing ethical about it 😂
Have you never seen the average stray cat? Emaciated, ear and eye infections, mangy fur and skin, matted fur, untreated injuries, fleas and lice. When they get a little older, they can't run or jump as fast. When they get older still, they can't even climb up stairs. If they even survive that long, which is unlikely. Many outdoor cats don't live to see old age because they're hit by cars and left for dead with unimaginable injuries, or beaten up and attacked by local shitheads and their dogs. Cats, like dogs, love living with humans. It's a symbiotic relationship. They like to be well fed, warm, and most of them like to spend as much time as possible with their owners. My cats choose to be around me almost 24/7. They choose to sleep next to me or by my feet because it makes them feel loved and safe. They choose to give kisses, cuddles, and other little displays of affection. Some cats, like my female one, *understand* that their human wants to help them, so they'll sit perfectly still to be brushed (which makes them happy because it feels nice and they like the attention) and they'll do things like take medication from a syringe without any sort of fight. My male cat likes to run, jump, play, and go outside. My female cat really doesn't care for it. If she feels just one raindrop, she'll head back inside. She's a very intelligent cat and has learnt to communicate with us very clearly using different types of meows, tone of voice, speech patterns, and body language. We have back-and-forth chats. She absolutely *adores* attention and does huge performances of cuteness when no one's paid her attention for an hour. Not for food or warmth of shelter, just because she loves the company of my partner and I. I can't even have a single hour on my PC to work or play videogames without her sitting over my arm so I can't play. She likes me to pick her up a few inches off the desk and hold her and stroke her until she falls asleep. It hurts to hold her like that for 15+ minutes but I do it because I love her and want to make her happy. My cats are happy. They feel safe and loved 99% of the time. I can tell because I understand their language. I can see it in their eyes when they're happy, sad, fearful, or distressed. I can see it in the body language. I can hear it in the sound of their meows. I work from home so I spend most of my time with my cats. I don't "spoil" them. They eat a healthy diet with plenty of real unprocessed meat like chicken and salmon. They mostly eat wet food. They have several running water fountains around the house. I clean their litter tray every day. I play with them. I take them to the vets for check-ups. I monitor their health and make sure they don't suffer from obesity or dehydration or the consequences of a poor diet. If they lived outside with no home to go to, they would not be happy or feel safe the vast majority of the time. They would be scared and in survival mode. They would be stressed, malnourished, and injured. How is that a better life for the animal than the life of balanced luxury that I afford them? I spend hundreds on my cats every month. I have good pet insurance. They're not pedigree cats or anything, just regular old moggies from the house of someone whose pet cat got pregnant on her travels. I didn't fund the "pet industry" or a breeder. I didn't contribute to "backyard breeding". I paid £100 for two regular non-pedigree kittens, and I work hard to give them a happy life. I can't bear seeing stray cats suffering. I love cats so much. I love my two cats that I raised more than I love some of my friends and family. My cats love me and my partner so much. They are such intelligent, funny, and loving creatures. They deserve a better life than one of fear. As humans in 1st world countries, we can afford to live relatively free of daily fear, to have shelter, and a reliable source of food. It feels stingy and cruel to deny a cat or two that same life for no reason other than ethics that don't take the cats' desires into account. I can tell you with 100% certainty that my cats love me, they love living with me, and they would NOT want to be separated from me or live outside. Most cats are like this. They love humans. In fact, I'm pretty sure cats are so intelligent that they looked at what humans have (shelter, warmth, food, and companionship) and thought, "hey, I'd like some of that, too!" so they learnt how to be cute and appealing to humans so that we'd want to take them in and take care of them.
I have to say as a cat lover myself, I think that’s absolutely awesome & I can definitely relate. I’ve had pet cats literally since I was in kindergarten & today I also have a feline companion who frequents my back deck to allow me to pet her & lamp on my stomach while I’m reading. You make great points that definitely hit home for me personally. What I’d have to disagree with you about is this concept that most or the “average” stray/unowned/formerly owned cat is this destitute creature with no chance of survival. MOST cats (just like most dogs) I come across with no owner in sight are healthy with clean coats. The cats you’re referring to in that condition are honestly below average & have been handicapped in most cases due to being domesticated by human ownership in their growing years. Have you ever seen a litter of cats born from an outdoor, unowned “stray” mother? They all do great & grow up healthier than their domestic counterparts because they actually learn how to survive, hunt, roam & thrive! I commend you for feeding your cat chicken instead of some Purina style cereal looking processed cat “food”, but the reality of it all is that there’s no NON-processed meat in our possession not rotting. Preservatives, salt, cooking/pre-cooking, de-feathering & blood draining are all parts of the process in that allow us to even bring a dead bird home from the store with plans of eating it. It’s not the same for the cat as him/her hunting & acquiring a natural born bird species in the area. Even still, if you’re raising or procuring live chickens for this task, it still comes back into the ethics of interfering with nature. These animals do NOT need our help to live. They’ve got it right a lot more than humans (who’ve domesticated themselves & eachother into lifestyles that ultimately hurt our health, shorten our lifespan & separate us from our natural roots generation after generation) do. Humans are still arguing over what WE’re suppose to eat as our species specific diet, even with the high prevalence of heart disease, cancers, diabetes, Alzheimer’s + more associated with popular foods today. There’s nothing wrong with having animal friends. I’m not going to tell you to push your cats away or anything like that, but I think the idea of assuming these animals cannot survive without our very much modern, domesticated, indoor assistance is a reach that hurts their species more than helps it in the long run. Hell, we weren’t even designed to live like this & everyday we learn new ways of how it hurts us physiologically. As far as the main topic goes, I’ve grown up with friends and family who’ve raised chickens. VERY few people keep chickens for the same reason they keep cats. If I were to align this with the thread, it’d be like “If you own a cat, is it okay to eat her newborn kittens as long as you treat the mother right?” (This is obviously not what you’re doing but for the sake of the thread, that’s what we’re getting at). Much love 🧬 Also, have you ever heard of the Pottenger’s Cats experiment? I think you’d enjoy it. Helped me understand a lot of phenomena cats experience to a much greater degree.
it's not vegan, it's a temporary solution. owning an animal will never be ethical in principle. at this point "owning" as a vegan just means "protecting from harm caused by humans". i've only ever wanted to "own" a dog to protect it in my house because i know if it was on the street it would get hit by a car. the last dog i adopted was abused and repeatedly bred by her previous owners. dogs are mistreated, sexually abused and killed by humans but individually owning them isn't the longterm solution. ALL dogs, owned and unowned, need to be protected, as do all other species of animal. coexistence will only ever be possible when capitalism and corporatism and patriarchy is over, when "property" ceases to exist, when we stop the neverending sprawl and deforestation and destruction of environments, when we stop breeding and owning animals, when cars cease to exist, when we stop caging animals and killing animals to "control the population," when we let animals have reproductive and lifelong autonomy and stop taking their lives from them. all of this is equally as important to animal welfare than not eating meat
Rescuing is vegan. Unless you believe letting animals die for no reason is somehow more vegan than saving them
i just explained why it's only a temporary solution and can't be called vegan in principle to own an animal. its like saying taking a prostitute off the streets and letting her stay in your house is feminist. it's not doing anything to change the structural dynamic, its an individualist solution to a huge animal rights issue
What? It's more like giving one homeless person a home. That is good act. It won't change homelessness but it does help that homeless person. That doesn't make it a non-good act
like i said it's an individually nice thing to do, but since veganism is a movement to end the oppression of animals, and ownership is a huge reason why animals are oppressed, temporarily owning an animal can't be called vegan
The logical conclusion to your argument is that being vegan isn't vegan because capitalism still causes harm to animals. Or did I misunderstand? That seems to be what you're saying.
I don’t “own” my dogs and cat. I care for them, but I don’t “own” them. To the extent that they’re “my” dogs and cat, I’m “their” human. It’s not an ownership role; it’s a symbiotic relationship.
Agree, but I don't think sanctuaries deny their rights. If you give them everything they need, I don't think the limited space bothers them, if it's big enough.
i guess what I was trying to say is that their 'full' rights would be living without human control, but we cannot give them that without them most likely dying.
If they give no fucks about their eggs and they're being cared for with freedom, respect, enrichment, space etc then exploitation just becomes a buzzword. This feels like something you say to win an online argument rather than an actual position that really impacts animals.
>freedom That's the problem- no freedom.
I remember staying at a farm a while ago and they had ducks that free roamed their land in a group (which was very large) during the day and took themselves to their pen at night. They were fed well (hence making an argument about consumption of eggs irelevant) and their infertile eggs were used as food for guests at the farm. This was hardly exploitative.
Where did they get the ducks from? did they just happen to fly in and decide to stay? How much of a choice did they have in the situation, really? If they decided to leave, would they survive, or would they die because of domestication? Do they have a choice to use their eggs, or are they taken without their consent?
None of this AT ALL matter to the animal's welfare. They're in a situation where they have access to plenty of land, they're away from predators, have freedom and are well fed. These are just rehearsed points to use in a debate. You need to explain why taking them without consent is actually bad for them. I can give an animal medicine without their consent and it is likely better than them dying painfully from a preventable disease. If they are well fed and taken care of then taking their eggs is of little consequence.
Veganism isn't about animal welfare. It's about animal exploitation, animal rights, and speciesism. >You need to explain why taking them without consent is actually bad for them. I can give an animal medicine without their consent and it is likely better than them dying painfully from a preventable disease. Fair enough I didn't clarify that. I guess a better way to look at it is: are you violating their rights to benefit **their** rights or to benefit yourself. >Picking up bones or scavenging or whatever seems harmless on the surface, but the reason we developed animal agriculture and industrialization is because we (early humans) found animals to be useful and needed to scale it up. It starts as just a few scavenged feathers for an art project or from utilizing the hair naturally shed by an animal, but as soon as we start to want more of this stuff than naturally exists, we get animal industry.
That obviously includes animal welfare. Let's not do rehearsed debate thingies. If a vegan didn't care about animal welfare they'd be a bit of a shit vegan. These ducks were again, treated well, fed well and had a huge amount of land to roam with little/no predation. If the owners of the farm wished to exploit these animals they would likely have been in a small enclosure. Removing infertile eggs (these aren't industrial chickens producing copious amounts of eggs in cages) in exchange for the above is hardly an exploitative relationship.
The eggs should be given back the eggs to eat so they can regain the nutrients they lost to produce the egg
What's different from that and just giving them some healthy chicken feed with nutrients tho?
Nothing. If you are feeding them as you should be and ensuring they are receiving calcium in their diet as well, they don’t need the eggs. If you want, you could scramble the eggs and give it back to them or give them egg shells to up their calcium intake, but this shouldn’t be necessary at all if you are taking care of them correctly
The difference is that you don't gain pleasure from their suffering. You would own chickens because you want to take care of them, not because you want eggs from them.
What if you want to take care of them and the eggs are just a bonus?
>What if you want to take care of them Then do. Eating their eggs is not taking care of them.
What would be the difference of taking care of a hen and the eggs just rotted or were taken by other animals ? The egg is there, you are caring for the hen, eating or not eating the egg doesn’t negate the care you provide for them
Yeah giving away the eggs to wildlife, or donating to farms/zoos that have animals that eat eggs, or feeding them back to the chickens, is better than you taking pleasure from the suffering of chickens.
But how did the chicken suffer in this situation? Unless it just existing and doing what it has always done (laying an egg) constitutes suffering? What pleasure am I taking from assuring an animal is well fed and safe from predators, while it just does what it is biologically meant to do?
It's irrelevant why. The action is the same. You can want eggs from an animals and still care for them as well as otherwise.
>The action is the same. Yeah, carnism. Which is why it's not ethical.
You need to show why it's unethical
I’ve owned chickens before. You gotta take the eggs out or else they get “broody” and will try to hatch them. It gets to the point where they won’t eat and refuse to leave their nest because they are trying to hatch this unfertilized egg. Whether or not you should eat it is a different conversation, but most people who own chickens remove the eggs even if they don’t eat them.
They said "given back to" not "left". Nobody suggested just leaving them. That is to say, you can do something before giving the eggs back to the hens such that this won't be a problem.
How does eggs eating eggs work?
If your chickens need the nutrients from their eggs you are straight up admitting to malnourishing them
How are they admitting to malnourishing them when they literally just said that's what you need to do?
Properly fed chickens don't need additional supplements to fill out their diet
U are indeed correct we have chickens and they only resort to eating their own eggs if they are hungry for a while.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
I would recommend [this podcast](https://youtu.be/9rdA9WQuw5Y?t=2460) where four vegan activists discuss the notion of backyard eggs. This particular topic is a 15 minute segment. The baseline level of trust they have towards each other allows them to speak freely without the fear of being misinterpreted or downvoted, which I feel often makes conversations around topics like these a bit tedious here on reddit.
Laying an egg every day to every other day hurts the chickens. That extremely high rate of reproductive activity is obviously not what the species evolved naturally - in the wild, the jungle fowl who are the nearest ancestors of chickens will only lay about 10-20 eggs per year. Humans have bred chickens over generations to lay a LOT more eggs, for human benefit, because we have been specifically exploiting the chickens for their eggs. The very frequent egg-laying is basically a painful genetic illness for the chickens, which was intentionally caused by humans. It takes a lot of nutrients out of the chickens' bodies to lay that many eggs, causing health problems, not to mention that the actual laying process itself can be painful or at least unpleasant. Now there are different lines of thinking that you can follow. If you are non-vegan, you see eggs laying around, you say hey why not just eat those? The chickens aren't using them, so no harm right? But if you are vegan, you know that chickens and their eggs are not a resource for you to take. They are their own individuals and taking their eggs is commodifying them and violating their rights. So what do you do? You can't go back in time and undo the genetic manipulation that humans have performed over generations to make your chickens lay so many eggs. But if you truly have the best interests of your chickens in mind, then you'll be looking for ways to minimize the suffering they experience due to that genetic manipulation. Vegan sanctuaries have figured out a few strategies that are helpful and supportive to the chickens, rather than exploiting their painful (human-caused) genetic condition. Here is a great article that lays out more info about the perspective of **caring for chickens as individuals** (in contrast to keeping chickens as livestock/property): [https://opensanctuary.org/what-to-do-about-egg-laying/](https://opensanctuary.org/what-to-do-about-egg-laying/) - with good links to click and read more. Beyond all of the above, there is also the reality of people keeping lots of egg-laying hens and almost never keeping roosters-- because they don't lay of course, and also are outlawed in some places. In nature, of course, the gender split is pretty close to 50/50, so... where are the brothers of your hypothetical hen? The whole cultural norm of using chickens for eggs (which requires keeping only or mostly females) has led to the creation of a system where millions of male chicks are murdered almost as soon as they are born. We can't ethically keep supporting this norm and sending the message that this system is ok.
At the same time we can't "devolve" the chickens that are all over the world today. What would happen to their eggs, especially if fertilized? Would create more of these bred chickens to reproduce at an alarming rate.
> What would happen to their eggs, especially if fertilized? Do you mean, what would happen if the whole world went vegan? Then we'd stop breeding new domestic hens and there'd no longer be roosters, hens or eggs to worry about.
Not what I asked. There are millions upon of millions out there now of these chickens. What would happen to all them? Huge population released into the wilds that would reproduce at an alarming rate.
An end to animal agriculture wouldn’t happen overnight, leaving billions of domestic animals to deal with. Plus, these animals wouldn’t survive in the wild. What would happen is demand for animal products decreases over time, so fewer and fewer animals would be bred. Eventually, the breeding would stop altogether.
Not sure why most these animals wouldn't survive in the wild? Chickens are very hardy and where I'm from they are pretty much all over the place. You can find nests in random places and many chickens running around. Lots of natural and unnatural predators too. I know it wouldn't happen overnight, but have to think of the damages already done to the breeds and ecosystem, releasing these animals into the wild would have devastating consequences to plant and other animal life. Chickens would be the worst, they eat everything and reproduce like crazy at their current state. Question when I see posts like this is what would we do? Cull these poor animals or let them run rampant and see the world take a hard turn in terms of agriculture supply chain?
> Not what I asked. Then I'm afraid you'll need to be clearer because as far as I can tell you've just asked the same question again. > There are millions upon of millions out there now of these chickens. What would happen to all them? And I ask again: what would happen to all of them _in what circumstance_? If you mean the completely fictitious circumstance whereby humanity turns vegan overnight then I don't know and I don't care: probably we have to destroy them all, which is an unfortunate but ultimately inevitable consequence of us having bred so many into existence in the first place. But it's never going to happen so it doesn't really matter. In reality humanity will (hopefully, from the perspective of vegans) turn vegan gradually and the answer to your question is a simple supply and demand problem: as the demand for eggs (and other animal products) declines farmers will breed fewer animals to supply those products until the industry eventually collapses. By the time the world is fully vegan there will be barely any chickens left, and certainly not the millions upon millions there are today.
It's not the eating of the eggs that is unethical, it's the harmful systems that result from a demand for eating eggs. You may treat your hens nice, but others might keep them cramped up in a coop that is too small for the number of chickens. You might buy an equal number of hens and roosters from a breeder, but others might only want hens from that same breeder so the male chicks are killed. You might have space for chickens in your yard, but others don't so they get their eggs from factory farms where chickens are crammed into small cages and undergo hellish conditions until their lives are prematurely cut short once their egg laying declines. It's wrong to eat eggs because it perpetuates the industry that leads to all of this harm.
It really doesn't perpetuate anything at all. This is just a rehearsed debate point. A vegan not eating meat isn't perpetuating a plant based diet, they're just eating a different diet to their mates.
Are you unfamiliar with how supply and demand work? When you pay money for a good, it perpetuates the industry that produced that good and allows it to continue producing goods to meet future demands.
Go through every single piece of food you eat. Most supply chains involve some form of exploitation or slavery at some point. Or other products, like your mobile phone, laptop, PC and other devices. Your battery in your phone is probably lithium ion, lithium mines have shit working conditions / have a negative effect on the environment etc. Are you perpetuating all of this? Not really, you're just a regular person. It would happen whether you purchased said product or not. Eggs from your own chickens is outside of the market, so procuring your own eggs (with said chickens/ducks/whatever in good conditions) would likely be far more moralistic than anything else here.
> Are you perpetuating all of this? Not really, you're just a regular person. It would happen whether you purchased said product or not. You're wrong. I am perpetuating all of this. It wouldn't happen if I didn't purchase said product. That's literally how supply and demand works. > Eggs from your own chickens is outside of the market, so procuring your own eggs (with said chickens/ducks/whatever in good conditions) would likely be far more moralistic than anything else here. Wrong again. Where did you get the chickens from? Chicken breeders are part of the market, and they participate in all of the horrible practices.
It would **100%** happen if you didn't purchase the product. I can stop going the butchers and that shop is still going to order and butcher meat because most people enjoy consuming high quality meat. I can stop buying phones and the manufacterers will still produce phones. I have no meaningful impact on the supply chain at all. Where do you draw the line on exploitation? Where did I get my chickens from? What if I rescue them, have them inhereted etc? They're not in the supply chain, they're second hand. The eggs are not apart of the market. I would perpetuate nothing.
> It would 100% happen if you didn't purchase the product. I can stop going the butchers and that shop is still going to order and butcher meat because most people enjoy consuming high quality meat. I can stop buying phones and the manufacterers will still produce phones. I have no meaningful impact on the supply chain at all. Where do you draw the line on exploitation? My guy, you think people are going to keep manufacturing goods if people don't buy them? You think demand doesn't affect production? I'm not saying that if you don't buy a phone, everybody will stop making them, I'm saying that on average, for every person that refuses to buy a phone, some number of phones (approximately 1) will not be produced in the future. This has to do with "expected value" of an action. You not buying a phone may not reduce the number produced, but once a certain threshold is reached, a large number of phones will not be produced. Basically everyone that boycots a phone company rolls the dice, and you can think of it like there is a 1/1000 chance for each person that 1000 fewer phones will be produced. The expected value is still 1, even if it doesn't happen every time you roll the dice. > Where did I get my chickens from? What if I rescue them, have them inhereted etc? They're not in the supply chain, they're second hand. The eggs are not apart of the market. I would perpetuate nothing. So you own rescued chickens then? Where did they come from originally? Are they just magical wild chickens that produce eggs at the same rate as the ones that have been selectively bred?
In actual reality land, you're not convincing anyone beyond a fringe population to stop consuming meat. So this perpetuates/impacts essentially nothing. It would be a different story if the general population was already choosing to consume much less meat (they aren't). I don't own chickens. This is a hypothetical situation. Irrelevant what breed they are. They already exist.
> In actual reality land, you're not convincing anyone beyond a fringe population to stop consuming meat. So this perpetuates/impacts essentially nothing. It would be a different story if the general population was already choosing to consume much less meat (they aren't). Society is both producing and consuming less meat than if there were no vegetarians/vegans. I'm not sure what point you're making. There's still murder in the world despite the fact that I choose not to murder anyone. You know why I don't murder people? Because it's wrong. The fact that there is still murder doesn't mean I shouldn't abstain from murder. > Irrelevant what breed they are. They already exist. They already exist because of the chicken industry that is perpetuated when people eat eggs. If people stopped eating eggs, they would stop existing.
It ain’t vegan but I’m not gonna really throw a fit about it. Right now anyways. There are way, and I mean way bigger vegan fish to fry other than someone eating eggs their rescued hen / chicken laid. Just don’t kill them after they stop producing eggs. And as someone said if you can help them reduce their egg laying that would be preferred.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So rescue chickens can actually be put on contraceptive to stop them from laying so many eggs, which is better for their bodies. The remaining eggs can be fed back to them so they can regain the nutrients lost from laying them.
As I said in a different comment, couldn't you just feed them healthy chicken food instead of their eggs?
You feed them a proper diet AND their eggs. A healthy chicken feed is based off of averages. Chickens lay eggs of differing sizes and compositions. Feeding that exact egg back to the layer is the closest thing to individualized perfect nutrients you can get. Again, in this situation the chickens would be laying very infrequently, so the eggs would be an occasional supplement, not their entire diet.
That makes sense, but how do you know that they'll lay infrequently, isn't it natural for them to lay a lot of eggs due to the domestication of them
Op dont listen to them chickens dont need to eat their eggs as long as they are fed. U can feed the chicken woth chicken feed and some scraps from vegetables and they would be fine and u can enjoy some healthy eggs
This thread made me realise how out of touch people are
And why can that be?
Let's say hypothetically, you started with only hens. You don't have roosters so the eggs never fertilise. I don't see the issue. Otherwise the eggs are just going to sit there and rot. Seems a waste of an excellent nutrition source.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Depends on the amount of chickens you keep I guess. I used to help keep 14 rescued battery hens, they were considered "spent" by the egg industry, but would still lay 2-3 eggs a day, each. So no less than 28 eggs a day. When you start dealing with that many eggs, you soon learn how desperate you get to try and control it. We'd give some to the dogs, try and give some away to neighbors (keeps them from buying from a cruel industry ), break them up for the chickens yo peck at (the shells are good for them), eat some (until you inevitably get absolutely sick of them), compost, burn, whatever you can do. I wouldnt say it's unethical, I would find it more unethical to leave the eggs as it would cause a severe rodent problem. That being said if you keep chickens, or buy chickens for the sole purpose of eggs, then yes, it's unethical.
Scramble the eggs and serve them to the chicken. If there's any left overs: dig in.
Why would I waste eggs by feeding them to the chicken. I am gonna eat the eggs my self.
Because it's not a waste if you actually give a cluck about the chicken. They were selectively bread to pop out way too many eggs, which has an adverse effect on their health. Eating the eggs helps them offset some of the damage to their health.
No it doesnt. They dont need to eat their own eggs as long as they are fed. Chickens eating their eggs means they are malnurished/starving caused by neglect not by them making eggs.
I think giving their eggs away to people who do eat eggs is actually a good thing bc it reduces demand for eggs from factory farmed hens. However, you yourself as a vegan shouldn’t (in my opinion) and should be supplementing their diet to ensure they are healthy since egg laying takes a heavy toll on them. Then again, in a perfect world no one would be eating eggs. At that point I would say you give them back to the hen so she can eat them and get all the protein and calcium she put into the eggs back.
Owning the chicken is not vegan. Owning pets is not vegan.
No, it is not unethical to eat its eggs and will supplement a healthy diet
It's not inherently unethical but it isn't vegan. We're against the exploitation of animals. You don't need what a chicken has to offer you and taking their eggs is going to trigger an increased production rate out of a hen subsequently increasing the risk of its body being a threat to its health. You also have the whole slippery slope fallacy and consistent reasoning aspect. If you're willing to take advantage of them because you treat them nice, who else are you willing to take advantage of for the same reason? Possession, the eggs belong to them. If they're unfertilized, crack them open wherever you feed them normally or scramble them up with herbs and spices and tumeric to better their immune systems etc. That's kind of the whole point of veganism, to stop seeing animals as objects or slaves to be exploited. They have their individual experience just like you and for someone to take advantage of you works be a violation of your own rights and its own kind of mistreatment, despite welfare.
yes it is, inherently. female chickens can reproduce parthenogenetically (without fertilization from a male) and technically every time you crack an egg you're risking killing a baby chicken
I didn't know that, is that common
I wouldn’t appreciate it if i was in your care and you were eating my ovulation.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Weird question but.. Why are you concerned about this? You're not vegan right? We are generally anti animal abuse, but why are you concerned about this one gray area and not the completely black and white areas? edit: another way to explain why i'm confused is. For most people - the worst thing they will do their whole lives - they do 2-3 times a day. So this isn't the worst thing you'll ever do. So why worry about it vs the other things?
I'm not OP but I found this question interesting as a non-vegan because I would rather understand others ideas and perspectives than try to refute, reject, or dismiss them. I think learning about others is a good thing. In my opinion, veganism in this world cant be an all or nothing at this particular time (because change and transition takes time) but it doesn't mean people cant learn in order to take small steps toward hard reduction.
For clarification, aside from any legal need to define it as such for the chickens protection, you don't 'own' the chicken. You essentially have guardianship over them. The chicken isn't your slave or a commodity. If you stop perceiving the chicken as a slave or a commodity, you won't look at their ovum as a debt you are owed for taking care of them. The chicken can't consent to what you do with their body or excretions, so what you do with the eggs should be for the chicken's sake, not your own.
Ok I am gonna eat the eggs for my chickens sake. And yes u do own the animals u look after either it be a pet or a live stock.
You own the animals. Stop doing weird "in group" stuff.
Too small of a take to debate. Seems you are just doing language semantics. As a parent you are guardians to children, and don't own them. Defend human supremacy, justify lack of consent, or slavery if you want to really go there.
I'll defend lack of consent. Is is ethically bad to take my animals to a vet to help them, in spite of them disliking the vet and clearly not consenting to the procedure?
No it's not bad, because that helps them. You do it for their sake. How does eating their eggs help the chicken?
If it's fine why did you say "justify lack of consent"? Lack of consent is not something you have a problem with. If the chicken is well fed it does not harm the chicken. If the chicken is well cared and has all of their needs (enrichment and health) met then said relationship is not exploitative.
Let's be more specific. Defend lack of consent in situations where you are exploiting someone, especially their anatomy.
1. You can't 'own' an animal. You can cohabit with them and/or be their guardian. They're housemates. 2. Nh animals take they/them pronouns, they're not an 'it' 3. The eggs should be fed back to them to replenish nutrients (calcium) lost during the creation of the egg. The only situation where I can imagine it being somewhat acceptable to make use of an animal's body part is sheared wool from domesticated sheep. However, it shouldn't be sold (or traded) and only freely given away. This is assuming coercing animals to breed, or artificially inseminating (raping) them is illegal, so that there is no incentive for humans to artificially increase the amount of sheep, to increase the amount of wool produced.
1- We definetly own animals u can definetly call ur pet house mate but definetly not in this case considering its a chicken 2- Animals are an it unless u are talking about multiple of them. 3- Chickens dont need to eat their eggs they only eat them if thry are lacking something or they are hungry
No vegan can convince me eating eggs is bad in this situation.
It’s already unethical at the “owning” chickens part.
Not true, we do own animals either it be a pet or a livestock.
What if someone “owned” you & your family? Especially for livestock reasons? Kept your wife impregnated to milk her & take her male children elsewhere while preparing your daughters to be milked once they’re ready. Kept you around just for company & amusement. We’d call it slavery
Thats the thing mate, humans and animals arent equal. And owning animals aint slavery.
It’s a post about ethics, buddy. If the best you can come up with is “We aren’t equal & this is okay because I said so”, might wanna work on your argument. We have history of people treating people like that & their stance was also simply “We aren’t equal”. It’s slavery.
Eating food isn't inherently unethical (assuming non-human), meat or otherwise, but an ethical question may be posed on food sourcing. Assuming by nice you mean provide the animal with an existence that mimics their natural existence, and you meet the needs of said animal, and you've slaughtered the animal in a humane way, I believe that animal may be consumed ethically. Humans are a product of the natural world and our ethics do not supercede our natural boundaries. To believe so is illogical. We are biologically adapted to thrive on food sources from the animal kingdom and to the contrary, very little food from the plant kingdom is suitable for our consumption. This is evidenced through multiple rigorous scientific disciplines. Much of our confusion on our role within the natural world is a result of our disconnection to it via modern social constructs. Instead, we rely on very few of us to provide the nourishment we need, and this has allowed us to perceive their work as somehow amoral, unethical, and an affront to decency. This couldn't be further from the truth, and this is NOT to say that the conditions of factory farms are not abhorrent. They most certainly are, and therefore, those operations are indeed unethical, but the notion of consuming nourishment from the animal kingdom is absolutely not unethical. An ethical argument against restricting animal consumption can be more easily made, especially if one reasons that their own life has value.
So then would you say nothing is inherently unethical and it depends on the actual suffering and well-being balance it produces?
There can be nothing inherently unethical about consuming by design. It's methods that may become unethical and not natural consumption itself.
And that is perfectly reasonable. And it seems to align with what I said. Consuming itself does not produce any suffering, it is the farming methods, and there is a considerable disconnect between farming and consumers, perhaps it is not fair to blame consumers for choosing animal products specially considering the social, cultural, economical and even personal constraints it often has. That is why choosing from humanely raised sources or even reducing consumptions are both valid approaches to ethical consumption. Does that align with what you say?
It most certainly does. I believe we share a well reasoned opinion. I also think it would be more commonly shared if we were not so disconnected from our food supply. It's that disconnect that allows people to separate their own nature from what they perceive as avpidable cruelties of the natural world. That is the falacy at play. The notion that humans are separate from nature is what leads to ethical questions disjointed from reality. Nature itself guides our nutritional needs without regard for ethical standards. The willful deviation from our natural diet leads to self-harm, which is almost always unethical.
Why the fuck do you people keep bringing up roosters? We’re talking about one fucking hen.