Not vegan so correct me if I’m wrong here, but I thought the whole point of veganism was an objection to the non-consensual use of animal products. Humans are aware of the use of their labor and consent to it, exploitation by circumstance notwithstanding.
Consent is a bad metric because it ignores externalities—stuff like economic incentives, implicit threats of loss of basic needs, propaganda, trauma. Someone can be said to consent to exploitation, even if they only did so to continue surviving under oppressive economies/states. I “consent” to have the value of my labor extracted, pooled, and distributed to business owners in the same way I “consent” to the privacy policies (and the sale of my Personally Identifying Information) of the software the company I work for requires us to use (to remain employed)
That’s why I prefer focusing on exploitation. Someone doesn’t have to know they’re being exploited, agree that they’re being exploited, nor even want to not be exploited for it to still be unjust to exploit them and identify when it is happening. Veganism is a stance against animal exploitation.
i do think that “voluntary” is a pretty clear term. would you still do it if it didn’t cost you anything, and it also didn’t get you any physical reward?
The problem I have with “voluntary” is that someone can still fall into the category of being exploited, either willingly or without their knowledge, and still happily and voluntarily participate in an unjust relationship
Good question. I have my own opinions, but I’d be more interested in hearing what reasons you can come up with (and any counterarguments you have to them), so I’m gonna challenge you to do that while slogging through all my disorganized brain droppings.
My biggest issue with “let people be exploited if they want” is that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If the world was two people, one who seeks to exploit and the other who seeks to be exploited, then I don’t really care; in our world, it’s a bad basis for society to allow for injustice simply because people can be convinced to want it.
In such a world, the exploiters (whether individuals or organizations) would seek to control whatever systems of education, media, and ideology they could to convince as many people as possible that being exploited is good for them. This would allow for them to centralize power, and that power would enforce a class divide; anyone who didn’t exploit others would be relegated to being one of the exploited class, anyone who willingly exploited others but didn’t work to convert more into “wanting to be exploited” would never amass as much power as those that do.
Besides the perverse incentives, that division would create a power imbalance that attracts (into the positions of authority) individuals and groups who are both indoctrinated into the system, and more efficient at subjugating others. That means there is a filter naturally built into any such system that selects for people who view others more as statistics and resources than people with inherent value, and are skilled at both convincing them to want exploitation and exploiting them.
Being the real world, people will not be perfect, so any lack of skill in one domain will require compensation in the other. If someone cannot be convinced to be exploited willingly, the authority will need to find other ways of enforcing exploitation.
Lifeforms being how they are, not all of them will be brainwashable; that means oppression will be necessary, as dissent is a threat to the amount of power an authority has amassed and imposes “soft” limits on how much power can be amassed—that is, limitations that can be overcome with enough effort (as opposed to physical limitations like the total amount of living beings). And any threat to the power imbalance is a threat to the system itself, a threat to the society.
We have thus specified a system that selects for abusers and oppressors in positions of power, without once having to speculate that unjust and cruel people would begin in such positions.
Now one might claim I’m just using a slippery-slope fallacy, that we might be able to specify such a society that accounts for the aforementioned flaws, and implements some sort of system of checks-and-balances to keep from the balance shifting so egregiously. And to that, I want to point out how any such system constitutes an aforementioned “soft” limit on power, but does not remove the incentives at the core of the system.
Meanwhile, in a just society, anyone who wants to be exploited and anyone who wants to exploit are given the knowledge and resources necessary to overcome such primal desires. Maybe they are educated, or maybe given safely contained environments—e.g. VR, or LARP, or BDSM—to exercise their desires without negatively impacting others/society.
I would also challenge the assumption that there is some naturally-arising desire to be exploited. Put another way: assuming a perfectly just society, whence comes the desire to be exploited?
I would argue that the good feeling from a well done job counts as a physical reward 🙂 and is a necessary motivational feedback. If you mean monetary or resource awards, I agree.
yeah that was exactly what i was referring to. as long as we’d rather stay in bed in the morning, we’re not doing it voluntarily. and be honest, do you go to work voluntarily? would you still do it if you didn’t need the money? if so, then yes, it is vegan.
well, the question is whether you enjoy the act of picking up a fruit and eating it, i guess. like, even if a full platter suddenly appears in front of you, you still have to shove the mass into your mouth. do you enjoy doing that? if not, then why do you eat?
I find hunting, fishing, raising livestock, and gardening quite rewarding. Don’t make the first ones vegan.
But plenty of people, per OP, don’t “like” anything other than shoving food into their mouths, and sleeping.
This is such a stupid baby child perspective. Bitch, please, calories cost work. That’s literally thermodynamics. Get over your erudite fantasies of fully automated luxury (gay optional) (space optional) communism being now. It’s not now.
i never said that other people find all work unpleasant to do. there are many people who do a whole lot of activities voluntarily. (just look at how many people go to the gym, etc.)
But plenty of people, per OP, don’t “like” anything other than shoving food into their mouths, and sleeping.
Not vegan so correct me if I’m wrong here, but I thought the whole point of veganism was an objection to the non-consensual use of animal products. Humans are aware of the use of their labor and consent to it, exploitation by circumstance notwithstanding.
I don’t work voluntarly tho, i have to work because otherwise i am gonna be homeless and i can’t get food
I do not consent, no. I only go to work because otherwise I am threatened by homelessness.
Don’t forget starvation, disease and untimely death.
Consent is a bad metric because it ignores externalities—stuff like economic incentives, implicit threats of loss of basic needs, propaganda, trauma. Someone can be said to consent to exploitation, even if they only did so to continue surviving under oppressive economies/states. I “consent” to have the value of my labor extracted, pooled, and distributed to business owners in the same way I “consent” to the privacy policies (and the sale of my Personally Identifying Information) of the software the company I work for requires us to use (to remain employed)
That’s why I prefer focusing on exploitation. Someone doesn’t have to know they’re being exploited, agree that they’re being exploited, nor even want to not be exploited for it to still be unjust to exploit them and identify when it is happening. Veganism is a stance against animal exploitation.
i do think that “voluntary” is a pretty clear term. would you still do it if it didn’t cost you anything, and it also didn’t get you any physical reward?
The problem I have with “voluntary” is that someone can still fall into the category of being exploited, either willingly or without their knowledge, and still happily and voluntarily participate in an unjust relationship
and this is what i don’t get. if somebody likes being exploited, then why not let them?
Good question. I have my own opinions, but I’d be more interested in hearing what reasons you can come up with (and any counterarguments you have to them), so I’m gonna challenge you to do that while slogging through all my disorganized brain droppings.
My biggest issue with “let people be exploited if they want” is that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If the world was two people, one who seeks to exploit and the other who seeks to be exploited, then I don’t really care; in our world, it’s a bad basis for society to allow for injustice simply because people can be convinced to want it.
In such a world, the exploiters (whether individuals or organizations) would seek to control whatever systems of education, media, and ideology they could to convince as many people as possible that being exploited is good for them. This would allow for them to centralize power, and that power would enforce a class divide; anyone who didn’t exploit others would be relegated to being one of the exploited class, anyone who willingly exploited others but didn’t work to convert more into “wanting to be exploited” would never amass as much power as those that do.
Besides the perverse incentives, that division would create a power imbalance that attracts (into the positions of authority) individuals and groups who are both indoctrinated into the system, and more efficient at subjugating others. That means there is a filter naturally built into any such system that selects for people who view others more as statistics and resources than people with inherent value, and are skilled at both convincing them to want exploitation and exploiting them.
Being the real world, people will not be perfect, so any lack of skill in one domain will require compensation in the other. If someone cannot be convinced to be exploited willingly, the authority will need to find other ways of enforcing exploitation.
Lifeforms being how they are, not all of them will be brainwashable; that means oppression will be necessary, as dissent is a threat to the amount of power an authority has amassed and imposes “soft” limits on how much power can be amassed—that is, limitations that can be overcome with enough effort (as opposed to physical limitations like the total amount of living beings). And any threat to the power imbalance is a threat to the system itself, a threat to the society.
We have thus specified a system that selects for abusers and oppressors in positions of power, without once having to speculate that unjust and cruel people would begin in such positions.
Now one might claim I’m just using a slippery-slope fallacy, that we might be able to specify such a society that accounts for the aforementioned flaws, and implements some sort of system of checks-and-balances to keep from the balance shifting so egregiously. And to that, I want to point out how any such system constitutes an aforementioned “soft” limit on power, but does not remove the incentives at the core of the system.
Meanwhile, in a just society, anyone who wants to be exploited and anyone who wants to exploit are given the knowledge and resources necessary to overcome such primal desires. Maybe they are educated, or maybe given safely contained environments—e.g. VR, or LARP, or BDSM—to exercise their desires without negatively impacting others/society.
I would also challenge the assumption that there is some naturally-arising desire to be exploited. Put another way: assuming a perfectly just society, whence comes the desire to be exploited?
Define “physical reward”?
I would argue that the good feeling from a well done job counts as a physical reward 🙂 and is a necessary motivational feedback. If you mean monetary or resource awards, I agree.
That good feeling is a psychological reward. It is not physical. You cannot hold it, touch it, or give it to someone else for doing a job.
Eh, it impacts my physical body, those hormones exist. How about extrinsic awards, as opposed to intrinsic awards?
Did you only read the title
The OP was a little vague to me, but I’m also a little drunk.
yeah that was exactly what i was referring to. as long as we’d rather stay in bed in the morning, we’re not doing it voluntarily. and be honest, do you go to work voluntarily? would you still do it if you didn’t need the money? if so, then yes, it is vegan.
Wait… So unless food magically appears with no labor at all, because labor isn’t fun, no food is vegan?
So no food is vegan other than literal windfall fruit from a tree? Or does picking it up could as labor?
Religions are less strict
well, the question is whether you enjoy the act of picking up a fruit and eating it, i guess. like, even if a full platter suddenly appears in front of you, you still have to shove the mass into your mouth. do you enjoy doing that? if not, then why do you eat?
I find hunting, fishing, raising livestock, and gardening quite rewarding. Don’t make the first ones vegan.
But plenty of people, per OP, don’t “like” anything other than shoving food into their mouths, and sleeping.
This is such a stupid baby child perspective. Bitch, please, calories cost work. That’s literally thermodynamics. Get over your erudite fantasies of fully automated luxury (gay optional) (space optional) communism being now. It’s not now.
i never said that other people find all work unpleasant to do. there are many people who do a whole lot of activities voluntarily. (just look at how many people go to the gym, etc.)
so no, that’s not what i meant.