Why do people hate Vegans?

TheQuestion

Personally, I don't hate vegans, and as a culinary enthusiast and inspiring food critic I just find them annoying. But to go as far and say hate is over doing it for me. Although, the philosophy behind being vegan does sound noble, I still find it very illogical.

First let me say being “Vegan” is different than being vegetarian. Being a vegetarian is a dietary lifestyle. Where being Vegan is a ethical and belief based lifestyle similar to Jainism. Motivated by environmental or political change and reform.

I understand your trying to stop animal cruelty by boycotting the industry for it's inhumane slaughtering methods. And bring awareness to the commercialization of killing animals in the masses through automation for profit. Also bring awareness of over consumption, wasting resources and green house effect due to cattle emission (because Cow farts are destroying the world.)

But when you start doing the research the philosophy starts to break down and make less sense. For example, live stock isn’t a main contributor of emissions causing a negative effect on our Ozone layer. Research has shown that removing all livestock in the US will only reduce emissions by less than 1%. And since the 1950 US cattle production has reduced by 1/3.

You have the diet guru trying demonizing meat as the culprit for heart disease, cancer and other health problems. True, it is factor in these statics but it doesn't really justify eliminating meats altogether. Through moderation and better eating habits you can produce the same effect as not eating meat at all.

You have animal cruelty but statics show agricultural kill about 1.5 million native animals like gophers, foxes and other small creatures by agricultural machinery alone. Meaning if you order a salads you still indirectly contribute to a animals death in some way.

Does that mean vegans kill more animals than meat eaters? No.

Is undeniable that slaughter farms kill the most animals without a doubt.

But I do find there protest through veganism very ineffective, for one there is the sensitivity factor.

Food is addicting and very delicious and people are not motivated to care about where there food come from.

Next to alcohol, smoking and drugs, Food is the next feel good drug we as Americans go to. We don't eat to survive, hell we don't even eat to enjoy ourselves. We turn cooking and eating into a competitive pass time. Cooking shows and the obesity rate in our country is testimony of that.

There is the money factor, your fighting against a industry that makes annually $152.5 billion in meat packing and processing and $65.6 billion in poultry slaughter and processin. So you have to take in account how it can effect the nations economy if a radical change was implemented.

Than there is the defamation of Vegans. Is more pronounced by “That Vegan Teacher“ a internet personality on Tik Tok. Now when you hear the word Vegan you imagine a Neo-Nazi vegetarian who shames you for eating a Big Mac and steals your T-bone steak in the middle of the night while you sleep.

So the question is how will being Vegan save the world? Or the very least stop animal cruelty? Are they just catastrophizing to fuel the Vegan movement? Is it even effective to bring any kind of awareness and reform?

“Vegan” Shouldn’t Be The Last Word in Sustainability
https://harvardpolitics.com/more-than-veganism/

The Ethical Arguments Against Ethical Veganism
https://www.ourhenhouse.org/the-ethical-arguments-against-ethical-veganism/

The State of Obesity 2020: Better Policies for a Healthier America
https://www.tfah.org/report-details/state-of-obesity-2020/

The Market Workers
http://www.themarketworks.org/stats

Do “cow farts” cause global warming?
https://www.iowafarmbureau.com/Article/Question-Do-cow-farts-really-contribute-to-global-warming

Agent Smith

Interesting question! When do you say "stay away from me!" Sometimes, "you jerk!" added on for effect and emphasis. Vegans love animals!

Amalac

You have animal cruelty but statics show agricultural kill about 1.5 million native animals like gophers, foxes and other small creatures by agricultural machinery alone. Meaning if you order a salads you still indirectly contribute to a animals death in some way.

Does that mean vegans kill more animals than meat eaters? No. — TheQuestion

No serious vegan will deny that they also contribute to the suffering of sentient beings by many of their actions, and it does not follow from this uncontroversial fact that purchasing animal products is not bad. Even philosophers like Chomsky use this kind of argument against veganism, not realizing that it is clearly a case of the Tu quoque fallacy

Just because we contribute to suffering, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to contribute less to suffering and cruelty. Veganism is not about trying to be completely and perfectly moral by means of not causing any suffering, which is a mere chimera, but about showing a way in which we can be more moral and cause less suffering than we would if we purchased animal products.

Imagine a thief or murderer saying to a judge: “why are you convicting me? All of you contribute to the death/suffering of many people as well, just by purchasing those phones you have, or driving to your workplaces”. It is clear that no decent person would accept that as a justification for stealing or murdering, so why should it be any different with contributing to industries which treat animales so cruelly?

But I do find there protest through veganism very ineffective, for one there is the sensitivity factor.

Food is addicting and very delicious and people are not motivated to care about where there food come from — TheQuestion

I'll grant that many protests by vegans are very unpersuasive, such as those where they call others murderers and what not. But I know many vegans who are more respectful and persuasive, and who are more concerned with presenting a clear moral argument in a calm and civilized debate.

As for people not caring enough, well they should care, and you don't need to think too hard to figure out that most of the food most people eat comes from sentient animals, and once they inquire into how these animals are treated, some of them would realize that that is a bad thing.

As for food being delicious, suppose someone found out that human meat tastes really good: would that justify their torturing and exploiting humans to eat them? Of course not, so why should it be any different in the case of other sentient beings?

There is the money factor, your fighting against a industry that makes annually $152.5 billion in meat packing and processing and $65.6 billion in poultry slaughter and processin. So you have to take in account how it can effect the nations economy if a radical change was implemented. — TheQuestion

Slave owners could have used exactly the same argument in the past: “you can't abolish slavery, you have no idea how radical a change in the economy that would be!”

baker

Why do people hate Vegans? — TheQuestion

Vegans dare to question the status quo. Questioning the status quo is morally reprehensible, for many if not most people.

Outlander

I wouldn't say people hate vegans as much as people dislike other people telling them what to do. Or otherwise resulting in actions that require them to do more for what they want (rising costs of meat if production is significantly reduced). We may grow old and are our faces may age, but we're all still children in one way or another.

Agent Smith

Because of their holier-than-thou attitude. They (vegans) need to get off their high horses! :lol:

TheQuestion

Slave owners could have used exactly the same argument in the past: “you can't abolish slavery, you have no idea how radical a change in the economy that would be!” — Amalac

I didn't say is not possible but consider this analogy of a doctor.

If a Doctor has a patient with gangrene and need to have a limb severed. You don’t rip off the arm, the patient will go into shock and die. Prep work is needed to properly remove the infected limb surgically. So the patient can survive.

Slavery in US history has record of that. Was it the right thing to do, yes obviously but not without struggle.

As for food being delicious, suppose someone found out that human meat tastes really good: would that justify their torturing and exploiting humans to eat them? Of course not, so why should it be any different in the case of other sentient beings? — Amalac

It doesn't matter if it's cruel or not is an addiction, is like having a moral debate with a meth addict. When a prostitute provides services to get her hit money does she question the morality of her actions, no. She wants that feel good hit, she knows is wrong what she does but again doesn't care.

Amalac

I didn't say is not possible but consider this analogy of a doctor.

If a Doctor has a patient with gangrene and need to have a limb severed. You don’t rip off the arm, the patient will go into shock and die. Prep work is needed to properly remove the infected limb surgically. So the patient can survive.

Slavery in US history has record of that. Was it the right thing to do, yes obviously but not without struggle. — TheQuestion

Then I don't see why the idea of a sudden change worries you, the chance of everybody turning vegan as soon as you do is practically 0%, so the change would be gradual. None of that implies that you are doing nothing wrong if you continue to purchase the products of animal exploitation.

The more people become vegan, the better, even if it's almost certain that not everybody will become vegan at the same time.

It doesn't matter if it's cruel or not is an addiction, is like having a moral debate with a meth addict. — TheQuestion

Not everybody is so close-minded and dogmatic so as to never seriously question their actions. If that was true, neither I nor anybody else would have ever become vegan. So one just has to reach those who are willing to change their mind and their actions.

This applies to murder, stealing, raping, etc as well: some murderers or rapists would say that they don't care about the sufferings of others, or that they know that it is wrong but will continue doing it. But so what? None of that justifies murdering, stealing or raping. So what conclusion are you trying to get to here?

Banno

Why do people hate Vegans?

They taste like broccoli.

unenlightened

But when you start doing the research the philosophy starts to break down and make less sense. For example, live stock isn’t a main contributor of emissions causing a negative effect on our Ozone layer. Research has shown that removing all livestock in the US will only reduce emissions by less than 1%. And since the 1950 US cattle production has reduced by 1/3. — TheQuestion

Do some more research, maybe. The main driver of deforestation in the Amazon is for livestock and feedstock. National statistics can be misleading; cattle production can decline while consumption increases. the environmental costs are thereby outsourced.

But the heart of the environmental argument is that the land usage of a vegan diet is about 10% of that of the high meat diet of the West. It's the simplest way we can have more people and more trees on the same size planet. Going vegan isn't a complete environmental saviour, but it's really easy to do gradually and informally - once a week or twice, or...

People hate vegans because they hate their identity being called into question. "Cowboy fragility", I think it's called. :wink:

god must be atheist

I hate vegans because they stole my bicycle.

Nils Loc

What's weird is that some vegans don't eat honey but it could be argued that bee keeping improves the life of a bee colonies because bee colonies always often fail in nature for all kinds of reasons. For example, if a colony is queenless and for some can't produce new queens, you just introduce them to the next colony over which might have healthier conditions/resources to continue their work. Bee keepers extend the life of colonies as much as they can in exchange for honey and pollination. Sounds like a win win to me.

Similarly you could make the case that humane farming of animals for food might cause less suffering than animals experience in a state of nature. For example the winter cull is probably kind of brutal for animals that didn't consume sufficient calories during the warmer season. If farmers could manage their farms well enough to assess degrees of suffering and to expertly cull animals that are suffering, this might provide better conditions for animals compared to the state of nature.

Humans are probably the most wretched of animals insofar as we internalize the severity of our own suffering as we project it onto animals. Substantial to human suffering is that we terrorize ourselves over a past and a future. There is so much we have to be aware of compared to animals (ex.climate change, working joyless hours to fill the car with gas, anxious conflicts of moral imperative...).

TheQuestion

So what conclusion are you trying to get to here? — Amalac

I actually have two....

1) The more you label something as wrong, more people will do it. I agree with the Vegan cause but people will still eat meat cause it has become taboo and vegans are making this behavior very attractive.

2) Vegans are becoming more of a dogmatic secular group than that of a activist movement and they’re losing creditibility because of it. When you shame meat eaters is no longer about the cause or the environment but about your personal beliefs. What the individual perceives as what is morally right or wrong. And the original message gets lost and is seen as something different.

Tom Storm

↪TheQuestion

I'm not aware that people hate vegans.

TheQuestion

I'm not aware that people hate vegans. — Tom Storm

The title is based on a article I read recently with the same title. The thread is mostly a question of cultural perspective than factual.

There is no right or wrong answer is just exploring how Vegans are perceived by society. If the practice of veganism is an effective strategy to promote change in the world.

Tom Storm

If the practice of veganism is an effective strategy to promote change in the world. — TheQuestion

Ok. I imagine changing the human diet en masse would make a substantial difference to the world's resources and industrial economies. But so would broadly practiced minimalism or religious asceticism. What we don't know is what the unintended consequences of such choices would be.

Agent Smith

For already, sometime, I have been a boy and a girl, a shrub, a bird, and a silent fish in the sea. — Empedocles

Empedocles would have us starve to death! That in itself is a point in favor of nonvegetarianism, no? Food (animal/vegetable) or malnutrition-starvation. Tough call o humans, my brethren! Either us or them! Suddenly, nonvegetarianism and veganism start to make (ethical) sense. Insectivorous plants "grow" in nutritionally deficient soil. They've also learnt to count (vide venus fly trap mechanism), without a brain to boot. What the f**k is going on?

ssu

Because of their holier-than-thou attitude. They (vegans) need to get off their high horses! :lol: — Agent Smith

Or basically that some Vegans, not all, have the attitude of actively judging what other humans as omnivores eat. That they feel nauseated of others eating meat and make a huge issue of their veganism sometimes happens. Or think that others are committing murder. I think vegans have this attitude far more than your ordinary vegetarians, who can eat things like cheese made from animal milk.

People of other dietary following don't necessarily have this arrogant haughty attitude and the simply fact is that if you have chosen one diet, you should let other people choose their diet as independently also. Simple manners.

Agent Smith

nauseated — ssu

Alpha-gal syndrome

Something to do with ticks (the Lone Star Tick to be precise). Bloodsuckers doing their bit for a good cause. :chin:

The Alpha-gal syndrome is classified as a, get this, disease. All this is very puzzling (to me)!

Book273

↪TheQuestion

I am not fond of anyone that tells me what I am doing is wrong based on their values. I do not lecture them about their choices unless they ask my opinion, and then I provide an answer. Vegan, vegetarian, feminist, anti-male, whatever your belief system is, it is likely not a problem for me until your actions make it so. Then I am not so supportive as someone else's position and value system is directly, and negatively, affecting me.

Book273

For already, sometime, I have been a boy and a girl, a shrub, a bird, and a silent fish in the sea. — Empedocles

I am thinking this is a promotional pitch for reincarnation, not food selection.

SophistiCat

Why do people hate Vegans?

They taste like broccoli. — Banno

Nonsense! I love vegans, especially those health-conscious, exercise- and diet-obsessed ones. They taste like high-end gourmet pork.

Book273

↪SophistiCat

yeah but they get stuck in my teeth. Too stringy.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪TheQuestion

Your sources leave something to be desired. Meat production produces 60% of the GHGs produced by agriculture, 14.5% of the GHGs produced in total by human activity. This leaves aside the local enviornmental effects of turning huge swaths of North America into a corn and soy ocean, and then blasting it with pesticides and fertilizer every year. When I worked for FEMA, this was a topic for Midwest flooding. Less than 1% of Iowa is native prairie grass. That land absorbs rainwater far better than corn and soy fields. It's no wonder flooding has increased. This also leaves aside the damage all the chemicals used in said agriculture does to the local ecosystem and to people who live near farms.

If you assume you'll just farm all that land currently being used for feed regardless of whether people eat meat, yes, the reduction in GHGs from removing cattle falls, but that's not a valid assumption because that farming would have to be undertaken at a steep loss. The land could instead be returned to open space, which sequesters more carbon and doesn't require industrial output to maintain.

Second, it's pretty disingenuous for them to just look at the total amount of cattle produced. The number of cows has fallen significantly, the amount of beef keeps rising. To be sure, larger cows produces less GHGs than many smaller ones, give the same amount of production, but the ratio is hardly 1:1 between the number of cows and the amount of GHGs, and GHG production from cattle is still rising with production. Not to mention the increased externalities of overproduction forcing meat to be shipped across the world's oceans while refrigerated.

Amalac

Similarly you could make the case that humane farming of animals for food might cause less suffering than animals experience in a state of nature. For example the winter cull is probably kind of brutal for animals that didn't consume sufficient calories during the warmer season. If farmers could manage their farms well enough to assess degrees of suffering and to expertly cull animals that are suffering, this might provide better conditions for animals compared to the state of nature. — Nils Loc

Leaving them in a “state of nature” is not the only alternative to farming them for food or other products, we can place as many as we can in sanctuaries and shelters made to take care of animals.

The overpopulation of animals is due to the fact that people keep demanding the products of their suffering, and so the people of that industry forcibly reproduce them to satisfy that demand. In the case of the demand for eggs, through artificial selection hen are made to lay ridiculous amounts of eggs, not caring at all about the suffering of the hen.

As the demand goes down, the need to forcibly reproduce more animals or artificially select them to fit their needs will also go down, which will diminish the total amount of suffering. And as was pointed out, these changes (if they occur) will be gradual, just as the changes needed to abolish slavery were.

Amalac

The more you label something as wrong, more people will do it. I agree with the Vegan cause but people will still eat meat cause it has become taboo and vegans are making this behavior very attractive. — TheQuestion

No doubt some people have that irrational and dogmatic reaction [“if they tell me purchasing animal products is wrong, that means it's actually not wrong and they just want to annoy me!” (a criterion which, by the way, they could apply to things like stealing, murdering, having slaves, etc.)], but like I said, those with an open mind will stop doing it. That some people will likely continue doing it in the near future, does not imply that we shouldn't try to persuade as many of the people who are willing to change their mind and actions as we can.

2) Vegans are becoming more of a dogmatic secular group than that of a activist movement and they’re losing creditibility because of it. When you shame meat eaters is no longer about the cause or the environment but about your personal beliefs. What the individual perceives as what is morally right or wrong. And the original message gets lost and is seen as something different. — TheQuestion

Again, not all vegans have such inefficient ways of protesting, though I do agree that the way many of them protest is not the right way if they want to persuade other people to become vegan. The right way is not to accuse people of being evil murderers or boasting about some pretended moral superiority, but rather simply to state the relevant facts clearly, and present a clear moral argument for veganism, so that the interlocutors themselves judge whether what they are doing is right or not.

Amalac

the simply fact is that if you have chosen one diet, you should let other people choose their diet as independently also. Simple manners — ssu

Veganism is an ethical philosophy, not merely a diet. And if your diet finances an industry which is cruel to animals, then you will have to admit that you care more about tasting some particular flavor than about the suffering of animals.

Also, would you accept the same argument coming from a cannibal who wanted to exploit humans to sell and purchase human meat? After all, it's “their diet”.

So yes, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean your choice should be immune to criticism.

Philosophim

I don't think people hate vegans per say. They hate vegan evangelists. Vegans who do it because they think its the right thing to do, and don't believe it makes them better than other people, I think are respected like anyone else. But, these vegans don't make a display of it, they're just living their life. As you get to know them, it might come up, but you might never know they were vegan at all.

People also don't like vegans that expect everyone around them to change. If you're invited to a party for example, and you insist how vegan they are, and that they won't come if there aren't vegan options, its annoying. If you quietly note you're vegan, and would they mind if you brought your own vegan dish to the party to share with everyone, people won't mind at all.

Finally, if a vegan is offended that they are served non-vegan food, or offended at people who decide not to be vegans. If you're going to dislike people who aren't vegans, they shouldn't be surprised when people dislike them back.

Its really not being vegan per say, its whether you're rude, inconsiderate, or a socially inept person about it.

Nils Loc

The overpopulation of animals is due to the fact that people keep demanding the products of their suffering, and so the people of that industry forcibly reproduce them to satisfy that demand. — Amalac

Disregard all animal production for a moment then and consider wild stocks, like the ocean. Suppose we had access to unlimited sustainable reserves of fish. Does catching fish cause suffering that could otherwise be avoided. Everything dies eventually and some might say that the suffering at the end of life in a state of nature is comparable to the suffering of culling.

Could vegans embrace insects as a food or is there still concern over taking life. I'm not so sure being ethically opposed to eating insects makes much sense from an appeal to suffering.

Amalac

Everything dies eventually and some might say that the suffering at the end of life in a state of nature is comparable to the suffering of culling. — Nils Loc

I already answered that leaving them in a state of nature is not the only alternative to torturing animals for food, there are sanctuaries for fish too. We won't be able to fit all of them there, but we can try to save as many as we can, just as it is good to try to help as many poor people as we can, even knowing that it's not possible to save all of them.

Supposing we put them in sanctuaries, if those fish which we can't help for one reason or another (like sanctuaries being full) which are in the wild would suffer just as much as they would in the fish industry, then I wouldn't object to them being killed quickly and painlessly for food, or even if they had to suffer just as much they would in the wild for the same culinary purpose, if we have no better choice.

Could vegans embrace insects as a food or is there still concern over taking life. I'm not so sure being ethically opposed to eating insects makes much sense from an appeal to suffering. — Nils Loc

From what scientific evidence suggests so far, insects probably have very little sentience, so I don't think we should be too concerned about them. It's not taking the life of an animal that is wrong, what's wrong is to make them suffer (to a significant degree) in the process.

And supposing insects did actually have a significant amount of sentience, I'd say it could still probably be okay to kill rats, cockroaches and the like, since they carry many diseases. On this point I more or less follow one of Bentham's utilitarian principles, I think the courses of action (as well as choices of not doing anything) which are more likely to lead to a state of affairs which has the better balance of the total positive mental states (pleasure, joy, peace of mind,...) and total negative mental states (pain, psychological suffering, boredom) are to be preferred.

If leaving cockroaches and rats alive caused a greater total amount of suffering to sentient beings than if we killed them, then most likely the better course of action is to kill them.

But from the fact that killing rats and cockroaches is probably not bad, it doesn't follow that it is also not bad to torture and kill cows, chickens and pigs, since leaving them alive doesn't have the negative consequences that leaving such insects and disease-carrying animals alive has.

Cheshire

I wouldn't say "hate" vegans. It's just that what one consumes is inescapably ego-centric. So, involving others in a self-important or judgemental way into one's dietary "life-style" is the foundation for a holographic conversation unless someone actually inquires. You don't care what I eat and I'm happy with that situation.

Why do people hate Vegans?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions