Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?
Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?
Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.
Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.
It’s mostly about consent. We can debate when and where sentience begins, but it begins somewhere and vegans hold a moral philosophy that says using another sentient being’s work product or body without their consent is immoral.
Note that I am not vegan myself but understand, if not agree with, their moral position.
And as another reply said, most vegans recognize it as a “best effort” philosophy, as they appreciate the impracticality of an absolutist stance. They are focused on “harm reduction”.
the term “consent” doesn’t appear anywhere in the definition of veganism, nor does the definition allude to the concept
Vegans aren’t just vegan, they’re vegan for a reason, and that reason is almost universally an issue of consent
if that’s true, why isn’t that party of the definition proffered by the vegan society?
do you have any evidence for this claim?
Veganism isn’t an organization with strict rules and regulations. There is no one definition of veganism. My evidence is the fact that nearly every vegan cites consent as one of the primary factors behind their decision to be vegan.
Edit: but hey here’s an article on their site mentioning it.
I’ve had this literal exact argument with you before. Glad to see you’re still committed to having the worst possible takes
what is “bad” about a take that literally references the vegan society?
this is not evidence that the reasoning is anywhere near universally about consent