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.

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    1·
    4 days ago

    the term “consent” doesn’t appear anywhere in the definition of veganism, nor does the definition allude to the concept

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        4 days ago

        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?

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          3 days ago

          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.

          Veganism is about neither using nor abusing non-humans, who all have a right to life and freedom. These animals cannot consent to being raised for milk and meat. Whatever conditions we keep them in, farming them is always an abuse of power.

          I’ve had this literal exact argument with you before. Glad to see you’re still committed to having the worst possible takes