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.

  • toomanypancakes@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    11 months ago

    Hi, ive been vegan for a bit over 10 years. I don’t think animal parts are for us to use at all. I’m not really sure why you’d harvest animals at all, I don’t think normalizing the commodification of others’ bodies is a good thing to be doing. If you really can’t live without animal parts, that’s probably the least harmful way of acquiring them. I wouldn’t recommend eating anyone you find lying on the ground though, that sounds like a good way to contract horrible diseases.

    Veganism is about doing the most that is possible and practicable. We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that. Similarly, driving a car for many people is a necessity to be able to access goods and services, and its not at all practicable to avoid driving for them.

    Ultimately, veganism is a moral stance about reducing harm to others as much as you can. It’s not a competition, so don’t feel like you have to be perfect at it to do good.

    • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      We probably kill insects just by walking, but it’s not reasonable to never move again to avoid that.

      There’s this Hindu sect whose adherents wear veils, sweep the floor before them, and/or tread very slowly and carefully to avoid injuring, killing or eating any small insects. As you said, it’s about doing as much as you can, but if it were a competition they’d win for sure.

    • QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      i saw a really interesting video about biking jackets and the design of them, the conclusion is that molecularly leather is the safest material for abrasion and there’s not really any synthetic replacement that comes close.

      What does your perspective (in regard to veganism) have on this subject?

      https://youtu.be/xwuRUcAGIEU
      Btw this channel is REALLY entertaining and well written, I’d recommend watching this channel if you get bored sometime

      • toomanypancakes@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’d take the risk with synthetic materials, personally. I don’t think any amount of danger I put myself in would justify killing someone else for their skin. I have a synthetic jacket with elbow and shoulder reinforcement for when I ride, and that’s good enough for me.

        I’ll definitely check out the video later when I have more downtime though.

    • SolidShake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Back in the way way way way way way way day. Human used animal fur for warmth, and the meat to eat.

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      If you don’t make a moral distinction between humans and other animals, it seems difficult to justify scavenging with any logic that couldn’t also be used to justify grave robbing, cannibalism, or even necrophilia.

      • pastaq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        This is strawman reasoning. No vegan I’ve ever met belives that there’s no moral distinction between human and non human animals. They believe that non human and have moral worth, and that moral worth is higher than 15 minutes of taste pleasure or shoes, etc.

        The basic logic flows like this:

        • Non human animals are capable of subjective experiences, which includes the ability to suffer.
        • Exploitation of or killing of animals causes suffering.
        • It isn’t essential, under normal circumstances in modern society, to cause that suffering for our survival.
        • It isn’t morally permissible to cause unnecessary suffering.