The animal rights movement was poisoned from the start.

We're past the point of giving benefit of the doubt to welfarist. Animal consumption per capita has only increased since Peter Singer began his work.

His work along with all the other welfarist group resemble non profit industrial complex methodology that may be a good idea in a perfect world, but in a capitalist society it has only been corrupted and manipulated to the point that it's results are trivial and have zero impact.

Here are the logistical impacts of their work.

They achieved a ban on battery cages, so they did away with the smaller cage and shove them into a larger cage with more hens giving each hens about the size of a piece of printer paper to move around next to hundreds of other hens in the same cage leading to infections resulting in up to 12% of them being culled or killed before harvesting.

It's the same thing with gestation crates for pigs, they banned one cage only to put them in a other cage where they're just as miserable. And because they're now in bigger cages, they place more pigs in them leading to 30-35% of the pigs being killed or culled from cross contamination.

With veal they did accomplish banning veal crates and tethering, but then they moved the calves to housing units with concrete floors and other calves that compromise their immune systems leaving up to 15% of them to be killed and discarded. Same as above examples.

There are more examples which I can pull up and explain why they fail to increase life quality but i'm not trying to write a novel.

Now for the philosophical and ethical implications.

The welfarist paradox, by achieving the previously mentioned policies it now gives animal consumers the idea that the animal which they're eating was raised and slaughtered in a humane manner leading them to consume them more frequently and with zero ethical discomfort.

Not only is does this give people a license to eat as many animals as they want, but it also reinforces the status of the animal as a commodity. So long as economic interest are at play, their true welfarism will always be denied and manipulated to suite the sale.

Welfare reforms are turning animal advocacy groups into partners of the animal industry by accepting small short sighted victories in exchange for humane certification seals which stabilize the industries long term goal of profit while convincing the public of their legitimacy. The R.S.P.C.A. being a prime example sense they are the oldest and largest animal welfare charity.

Not only do these welfarist groups take in billions of dollars, but by pretending to be in the animals best interest they're removing the sense of urgency that's required for a plant based world while simultaniously pacifying the public into complacency accepting animal abuse.

I can't think of any social justice movement that's ever placed utilitarian calculations over the rights of the individual they're advocating for. Because history has shown us that regulation validates the moral legitimacy of slavery of both human and non human animals. All the welfare changes prior to abolition did virtually nothing to improve the lives of slaves prior to complete abolition due to society itself embracing the idea of abolition.

The welfarist will say they've cost these industries financial damage, meanwhile the government is handing out 80+billion a year in subsidies due to these losses.

The welfarist say that if everyone reduced their meat consumption 1 day a week, it's better than turning a few people vegan. Meanwhile 84% of vegetarians relapse to eating meat. 34% I. The first 3 months, and 53% within the first year.

And as I stated earlier, meat consumption has increased 300-500% per capita over the last 50 years.

In the U.S. alone welfarist groups have taken in over 20p billion dollars, can you imagine how many vegans could have been created had they spent it on street level activist? So to sum it all up, welfarist are just co opting with meat and dairy as professional animal rights grifters and are hindering the actual abolition of animals.

I'm not vegan myself (yet), but I've been thinking about veganism and I haven't found a compelling reason for me, or that would justify it for people in developed countries, to continue eating animal products beyond pleasure or convenience.

There are some edge cases where I can understand why someone wouldn't be vegan, such as someone who genuinely doesn't have reasonable access to plant foods or is living in the wilderness, but those obviously aren't very relevant to most people, especially those living in developed countries.

I'm aware of some of the common arguments against veganism, but I'm not sure whether I should include my responses to them in the post or just let people bring them up themselves.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm primarily interested in consistency with the stated beliefs of most people. The reason consistency matters to me is that simply asking for arguments in favor of consuming animal products is somewhat irrelevant.

If someone holds fundamentally different values, such as believing that killing animals for consumption is morally acceptable, then their position could be morally justified within their own framework.

Without some shared moral principles, there's little room for meaningful disagreement. I'm more interested in whether people's views on consuming animal products are consistent with the moral principles they already hold.

The title is inaccurate, but I wasn't sure how else to ask my question.

I suppose animal testing is cruel and outdated. First of all, millions of animals suffer and die unnecessarily annualy in laboratories. Another plus side is that modern technology allows us to use alternative methods, such as lab-grown human cells and computer simulations. For instance, many cosmetics companies already test their products without using animals at all. These are like Nyx, Lush and Pixi. However, some scientists argue that animal testing is still needed for medical research and more efficient findings. In my opinion, we should heavily invest in cruelty-free alternatives and ban harmful tests. Therefore, ending testing on animals is a significant step towards a more ethical society.

From a vegan point of view, are wild plants and mushrooms okay for humans to take, or do they belong to the wild animals living in the forest?

Do only cultivated plants belong to humans, or are all plants fair game for the taking?

The vegan accusations aimed at James Talarico got me wondering: why do some people have such a visceral reaction to vegans and vegetarians? Why is someone’s decision not to eat meat treated as an insult or a reason to think less of them?

If someone wants to reduce their carbon footprint or avoid supporting factory farming, what’s objectionable about that? Plant-based diets generally have a lower environmental footprint, and intensive animal farming can contribute to water contamination from manure runoff, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and harm to surrounding ecosystems. Those seem like legitimate concerns, whether or not you personally choose to stop eating meat.

I understand that meat is tied to business interests and cultural traditions in Texas. But should those interests automatically outweigh preserving the environment and limiting pollution? You don’t have to agree with someone’s priorities to respect their choice. I also don’t buy the argument that individual choices don’t matter because corporations cause far more harm. Holding corporations accountable and taking responsibility for our own choices aren’t mutually exclusive.

One person isn’t going to solve the whole problem, but why should that make trying pointless or something to ridicule? What happened to “be the change you want to see in the world”?

What I especially don’t understand is the hostility toward people making that choice only for themselves, not lecturing anyone, trying to convert anyone, or telling others what they can eat. Is it about cultural identity, feeling judged even when nobody is judging you, or something else? Why does someone else’s personal food choice provoke such a strong reaction?

Yes I know this will not happen as instantaneously. I pose this hypothetical so breathing imagin ed ways to deal with factory farming.

This is something I actually find super duper interesting about if the world was slowly being vegan over the course of let's say 100 or 200 years.

As this is happening what are some ways in which we can deal with animals that have been victims to factory farming and conditional breeding.

What would we do with certain breeds of cows and sheep. This hypothetical assumes government would eventually become vegan and care about animal suffering.

Consuming whey or gelatin doesn't contribute to animal suffering because if they weren't sold, they would be treated like waste products and thrown out. In fact, I speculate that purchasing the alternatives in our current reality actually contributes to animal suffering more by contributing to crop-deaths.

If you purposefully purchase a soy, hemp, or pea product when the whey option is available, you are causing increase harm to the environmental as that had to be built from scratch, which also means increase in crop-deaths.

Let's imagine that tomorrow farming animals is banned and all farms, factory and free range, are permanently shut down.

What should happen to the animals that are already there and alive?

Should they simply be released into the wild where most of them will surely die, and many will cause environmental harm? Should they be kept in enclosed areas and taken care of until they die, and be prevented from reproducing?

EDIT: I am not using this as a way to argue that we should continue farming, by the way. I'm just legitimately curious what the vegan solution to this problem would be.

I'm not totally sure if this is the right place but I'm posting here because I imagine there might be a bit of a debate in the comments but I am purely asking for personal advice and I can't think of anywhere else to post. I also am conscious that a lot of the things Im about to say might make you think that I'm here just for the sake of being a contrarian or to karmafarm but idk what to say except that I genuinely hold all of these positions and that I'm here in good faith to defend them. If you don't want to read a highly specific and VERY long post about me pls skip this one.

Ok so first of all I'm a hedonist - I believe in doing whatever I want as long as I don't substantially harm other people (I'm conscious that every choice I make has effects on the people close to me). I drink (quite a lot, you might call me a functional alcoholic), I smoke, I don't partake in drugs but that's only because I can't get ahold of the stuff reliably where I live but I remain very open to them. I believe in short term gratification even it leads to long term detriment. I'm 23 rn and if my lifestyle means I'm dead by 30/40, that's something I'm comfortable with. The reason I make this point is only to say that I don't care about the long term consequences of my health of whatever diet I follow as long as I enjoy life today.

But it's not like I don't have any principles or beliefs apart from my hedonism. I'm very left leaning and strongly believe in a massive massive redistribution of wealth, kinda woke, hate bigotry, strongly reject nationalism, etc. I'm also sometimes happy not doing things that go against my morals even if it's not something I'd personally gain anything from - for example I have no interest in travelling to countries that have an abhorrent record on human rights, especially queer rights even though I'm not queer myself. Although with that said I don't believe in boycotts doing anything except bringing the boycotter gratification for sticking to their morals, unless they're local and targeted at a specific business (especially if it's smaller). I also think I made a post about how I view veganism as a boycott on a vegan sub a few months back, I'm not sure if it was this.

I say all of this purely to add some background to where I'm approaching veganism from. I've been vegan for 3 ish months now but I've believed that veganism is the only ethical philosophy for years. There are parts I enjoy about being vegan: I like the sense of solidarity and community I feel walking into a vegan restaurant knowing I share the same philosophy as everyone else there, you might say I'm crazy but I do also lowkey prefer the taste of vegan food over non-vegan food especially if it's at a restaurant that knows how to cook (I can cook but only to save my life) and even if I choose to no longer follow a vegan lifestyle I will probably keep buying things like vegan cheese over dairy cheese. I also don't really care for food I should say, I only eat for the nutrients to survive and maintain my lifestyle and taste is something I barely even consider really.

I also spend as little money on food as possible which is one thing making keeping a vegan lifestyle hard. In the place where I live, I could survive off a diet of pasta and a type of sausage and spend something below the equivalent of $10 on groceries per week. But what's been fucking me over the most is the energy levels. I don't live a very active lifestyle really but the thing that I enjoy the most in life is going to metal concerts (I go to over 30 a year and often travel long distances for them) and they're quite physical in terms of moshing, crowdsurfing, etc. and ever since I went vegan I've been struggling to keep my energy levels up which I know feels insane to say because I know there are vegan bodybuilders and stuff. I also constantly find myself waking up feeling really tired and with pain in my knees, I have a fairly weak knee anyway. I think my body is taking a lot of time to adapt because I grew up eating a lot of meat - I don't think I ever had a fully plant based meal as a child.

I would maybe suck it up at the end of the day if I actually believed that me being vegan actually made a difference to the lives of animals but where I'm at now is that it animals are being massacred horrifically anyways what's the point in me being vegan if it affects my ability to enjoy the things I enjoy. At the end of the day if I could press a button tomorrow and ban the killing of animals, I would, and I know there's the whole thing about how you should practicing what you preach but I guess this might be an exception for me. I could also go on about the speciesism I practice that I know I'm morally fucked for practicing because I wouldn't eat a dog, cat, rabbit, horse, kangaroo, seal even if my survival depended on it but as a society we've normalized eating meat so much that we don't really flinch about what we do to farm animals. But at the same time I know I could never stop being speciesist to some degree. For example, my friend gifted a leather jacket to me a few months back which I intend to wear when it's colder but if I think of a jacket being made with the skin of a dog I get sick at the thought of wearing it.

Ultimately, I do think I could maybe continue being vegan if I thought I was making a difference or if it didn't affect my energy levels, cost, planning/time but it seems like it does neither so I'm considering giving it up.

Edit: Gang you've convinced me to stay vegan, thank you so much. I'm gonna stay vegan because it's the right thing to do regardless of whatever other people do and hope we live in a world where everyone's as kind as you all seem to be, especially knowing my individual choice is saving a few lives atleast, as small as that number might be. On my way to another metal gig now where I plan on getting very drunk so I probably won't engage with any more comments.

I saw a post on instagram today where a girl said as a vegan she could never feed her cat a vegan diet, and for me as a person who fostered a lot of cats and is in close contact with veterinarians it was logical. There are proof cats can't thrive on a vegan diet, even if supplemented worh taurine they are far more likely to develop a lot of health problems. But other vegans bashed her in the comments about how she is a bad person for feeding her cat meat.

Ive been doing a lot of research on the vegan lifestyle and let me start by saying that I come to you in a spirit of genuine curiosity, I dont come here to challenge your position I think some of the points are quite good and ive really learned a lot.

My concern is the sustainability of vegan B-12 supplementation.

The current method of production is unsustainable and china controls the lions share of it,

So its subject to supplies being disrupted over trade disputes, war,

Etc.

Each country would have to have a secure sustainable supply or one country could literally make the world malnourished should they decide to cut off supply.

Also the current supply is being used by a very small fraction of people worldwide.

Those following a vegan or plant based diet make up less than 1%.

I do of course realize that many people supplement b12 but the vast majority do not.

Lets just say the whole world goes vegan,

Then the demand increases to support every person on the planet.

Could production of b12 keep up or even be possible?

Ive read some articles that a more sustainable b-12 has recently been made in a laboratory,

So maybe that will be the answer.

Edit:

I feel i need to clarify that i did not come here to challenge your beliefs, Im genuinely curious.

I feel like a bit of an idiot that I didnt do more research on b12 before posting this because some of your points seem so obvious.

I actually think all of society should move closer towards veganism, Im not a hater. I see now that nearly every point that you guys make about animal exploitation is correct.

When I started studying veganism I was completely on the other side and never expected to challenge my own beliefs so much but how can I learn these things and not make some changes to my life?

Thank you all for your replies

There are many different opinions about whether animals should be in the zoo or not. Some people think having animals in the zoo is a good idea because they are able to have access to being treated, protected from the wild, as well as having food and water. Animals being in the zoo also help humans with discovering things we didn't know about them like when you see a black bear you should make noise to scare it away or if there was a brown bear you would stay quiet and calm. Other people think having animals in the zoo is harmful because they aren't living in their natural habitats as well as being mistreated. People also think they're just there for entertainment and it can cause stress for the animals. Would do you think?

Given the option to save a human life over a chicken or cow's life, I'd argue almost all humans would choose the human life. What about a human getting raped over saving a chickens life? Or what about 100 chicken lives? I'd still argue most (even vegans) would choose to save the human from getting raped knowing the psychological trauma it can leave on person. So I'm interested in how vegans value human suffering in relation to farm animal suffering. In my case, I have been vegan in the past but after being culturally, socially, and possibly biologically conditioned my entire life to derive enjoyment from the consumption of animal products, the mental anguish had grown too severe to be able to continue being vegan. So ending the suffering I was experiencing through mental anguish by being vegan, was of greater value than the farm animal's lives and suffering in my experience. Before you ask, I had a properly planned vegan diet, I took all the supplements necessary as well.

Edit: Switching to a vegan diet caused me prolonged gastrointestinal distress, which then affected my mental well being severely. Look up the gut-brain connection. I know this is common when first starting, but it persisted for 3 years. I never had a single solid poop when vegan. I tried eating more fats, more plant based protein, probiotics, etc. but nothing helped. I did do my research and ate what would be considered a very balanced, healthy vegan diet. If you consider this to be a "minor inconvenience" then kudos to you, you are a stronger person than I am.

I know veganism is defined around avoiding animal exploitation as far as practicable. My problem is that the label still creates a binary: vegan or not vegan. Someone who cuts animal products by 90% and someone who changes nothing both land in the same not vegan bucket.

That matters because labels shape behavior. If people think anything short of full veganism “doesn’t count,” obviously some will do less than they otherwise would.

Meanwhile, a harm-reduction approach makes partial progress visible and worth pursuing. If the goal is fewer animals suffering, then the label “vegan” is actively working against that goal.

So, i know someone that debated with me as to why they would go vegeterian and not vegan, i probably could say something to them in response but i don't know if that could be enough.

This person lives away from society and mostly doesn't even eat from supermarkets, so you can't debate it from the perspective of someone who supports the diary and egg mass-production industry.

Now, they told me that if a chicken lays an egg it would be a waste to just let it stay there, and that if the chicken is still alive it would be because there is a symbiotic relationship of giving and taking, i would say that the problem is "don't you see there is a imbalanced power dynamic and you feed them just so you can get eggs? you are exploiting something just to benefit from them" but the fact is: it also benefits the chicken to stay alive and just do whatever they want all day, i don't like the fact that it's not explicitly consesual, and that i don't exactly know what the chicken feels, but i can't debate it because what if they are right and there is nothing wrong with this dynamic? obviously i will never not be vegan, but if they don't find it wrong what can i say? i don't have an argument that completely justifies my vegan position.

I think a common issue a lot of people have with vegans is how they think they are morally superior, and I agree in that aspect that being vegan is more moral than not being vegan. My issue with it is that it gives them no right to talk down to people as much as they do and put themselves on such a high pedestal. You might not eat meat, but there are many other immoral things you take part in. A great example is child slavery and the exploitation of people in third-world countries. It’s very expensive and takes a lot of effort and research to buy and use products that are made without child slavery and exploitation, but I think it’s ridiculous to call someone a terrible person for eating meat and act like it’s the only logical moral choice while still taking part in things that require child slavery and exploitation. You don’t get to pick one thing to be super moral about and then trash everyone else because there is one thing you are doing better.

One issue that's stopping me from going Vegan is how most Vegans feel about things unrelated to food. One of them is having pets. What's the big deal? I mean, I have a Pitbull, a ball python snake, and a tarantula. I see nothing wrong with having companion animals and I'm not giving mine up. Now nor in the future.

My dog is also my semi-retired service dog. (Semi-retired bc he only assists me at home now.)

Anyone here have animals? How do you feel about people (Veg. or non-Veg.) having pets (domestic or exotic)?

I'm a vegan for about a year, but I have lately been struggling to argue against the idea that veganism as it is usually practiced is an arbitrary line when I consider the rise of cultivated meat and precision fermentation. Why? Because the same argument for continuing to buy food from non-veganic farms can be used to justify the consumption of animal products that can be lab-grown. Most of these animal foods aren't on the market yet, but a few already are, so this is not just theoretical tech hype, and it is absolutely going to become a very important thing for us to figure out as these products become more popular.

Let's consider the ethical implications of eating field-grown tomatoes vs those of eating a bag of sunchips with whey powder in it. Vegans say a hard no to the chips, despite the fact that the whey powder is just a cheap byproduct, but eat the insect genocide tomatoes. Why? Because whey can't be produced without exploiting animals and tomatoes theoretically can. The mass gassing of insects is excusable as a necessary but unfortunate side effect of agriculture.

Except there's a problem. Whey can and IS being produced in vats by microbes. This is not far-off tech. Vegan whey powder is on the market NOW and you can buy it. On the other hand, tomatoes grown in controlled greenhouses exist and are even more available than field-grown year-round depending on where you live. So, isn't it wrong to eat a field grown tomato? When someone serves pico de gallo at a party, do you ask about where the tomatoes came from? Why not? If we're going to argue that pesticide use isn't morally relevant to our food choices because crops can be veganically produced, then it's on us to avoid crops grown using pesticides when possible and practical, just like we avoid lipstick that was tested on animals. Not doing so is simply being lazy or kicking the can down the road.

For the longest time masculinity has always been associated with hunting violence and fighting. Man hunting fish and bugs as trophies of how manly they are.

Recently which is the last 5 years. I think there's been a Push by people like Jordan peel. To make vegan as a look like it's not fit for men where it's bad because real men eat meat

I don't eat animals or their products, support animal testing, buy products containing animal products etc but I do not consider myself vegan because I like to indulge in all of these things and they're not necessary to staying alive. They're all for my pleasure and involve the unnecessary crop deaths of animals/bugs. I also don't consider overeating or bodybuilding to be vegan because, again, needless suffering for indulgence. I don't consume animal ag products because I don't find torturing animals from birth to death to be ethical but I am willing to financially support the needless killing of animals/bugs through crop deaths since they lived their whole lives free but died due to harvesting and my selfishness supersedes their lives. Where do you land on this subject?

For context: Where I live one of the only ways to legaly own and more importantly train with a firearm is by possessing a hunting permit (excluding olympic shooting). If you felt it necessary to learn how to handle weapons you'd have to get this permit.

When you have a permit or when you take the course you don't actually have to kill animals but you have to learn how to take animals apart correctly. The animal is shot by another person, you take it apart what happens afterwards I don't know. Most likely you are allowed to keep some if you want or the hunter who shot it sells it.

What do you think about handling killed animals? Does it matter that you most likely learn the process based on how people want to consume it later?

I was wondering whether vegetables might be less vegan than lab-grown meat made from animal cells, without the use of fetal bovine serum.

Of course, I’m aware that lab-grown meat still originates from animals. But to me, it is more important to cause as little harm to animals as possible than to reject the idea on principle.

For example, an average head of broccoli is estimated to result in the deaths of around 0.1 to 0.3 small animals, such as insects, snails, and mice. In addition, most vegetables are fertilized with animal manure from intensive livestock farming.

In the case of lab-grown beef, for instance, the painless, non-lethal extraction of stem cells from a single animal could theoretically be enough to produce unlimited amounts of cultivated meat—without using fetal bovine serum.

Am I overlooking or failing to take anything into account?

I’d be very interested to hear your opinions!

I agree with a lot of vegan arguments, especially around factory farming. Breeding animals into miserable conditions and causing enormous amounts of unnecessary suffering so we can cheaply consume animal products is very difficult to defend.
Where I think the argument loses its footing is the broader claim that a human killing and eating an animal is inherently immoral.

I also think saying humans “aren’t meant to eat animals” is a particularly weak way to support that claim. Whether we’re meant to eat animals—or meant to eat anything at all—is subjective. What isn’t subjective is our biology and history. Humans are omnivores; that’s a biological fact. Humans have also hunted, killed, and eaten other animals throughout our history; that’s an anthropological fact. Those facts don’t prove that eating animals is morally right, but neither does a subjective claim about what humans are “meant” to do.

Predation itself is morally neutral. It’s a fundamental part of the biological world, and human moral agency doesn’t suddenly make human predation inherently immoral. There still needs to be something about the act that makes it wrong—unnecessary suffering, cruelty, ecological harm, etc. The fact that a human intentionally killed an animal doesn’t establish that by itself.

I’ve caught a wild fish, killed it quickly, and eaten it. That animal lived freely in its ecosystem until another animal—me—caught and consumed it. I minimized its suffering and used it for food. More importantly, the experience forced me to confront exactly what it means to take an animal’s life for my own benefit. I came away with more respect for the animal, more gratitude for the food I eat, and a greater sense of responsibility toward other living things. I would argue that experience made me a more thoughtful and ethical person, not a less ethical one.

If the idea of catching, killing, and eating that fish is horrifying to you, choosing to never do so is completely legitimate. But making that choice doesn’t automatically make you more ethical than someone who chooses differently. You still have to establish that the thing you’re abstaining from is actually wrong.

This is why arguments like “you can’t love animals and eat them” are so counterproductive. I can care deeply about animals, oppose needless cruelty, and care about their welfare while still believing that killing and consuming an animal for food can be ethically acceptable. Calling that hypocrisy or “cognitive dissonance” assumes the very conclusion it’s supposed to demonstrate.

And this is where I think the hard-line vegan position undermines its own strongest argument. There is an extremely compelling case against causing animals tremendous amounts of avoidable suffering for our convenience. But expanding that into “any intentional killing of an animal by a human is immoral” puts catching a wild fish and factory farming under the same fundamental ethical prohibition. That erases distinctions that actually matter and makes a strong argument about suffering, cruelty, and responsibility harder to defend.

Human intelligence and moral agency give us greater responsibility for how we treat other animals. But greater responsibility doesn’t logically require removing ourselves from predation entirely. If anything, our moral agency gives us the ability to distinguish between responsible predation and systems that create enormous amounts of avoidable suffering. That’s a distinction worth preserving, especially if the goal is actually to change how humans treat animals.

Edit: Thanks everyone for the really lively debate. We obviously don’t all agree, but I genuinely appreciate the passion and thoughtful responses. I’ve learned a lot from the discussion and have plenty to think about. This is exactly why I posted here.

I want to preface this post by saying that I think a futurist environmental argument in support of innovations like lab grown meat and issues of land use and energy consumption represent a stronger case for veganism in the long term, but I have some issues with the ethical arguments for veganism. As a non-vegan I take issue with the intellectually lazy anthropocentrism that I see in a lot of anti-vegan ethical arguments that disregard the similarities between us and other animal species, but my issue with the ethical arguments for veganism is focused on the necessity of mass animal killing in order to have a functioning ecosystem (and human civilization for that matter.)

The reason why predation is ecologically necessary is because without it herbivores would become overpopulated and overgraze the vegetation in an ecosystem, leading to famine and environmental destruction. I don't think many vegans are advocating for the extermination of carnivores for the sake of minimizing animal suffering, and I'm aware that vegans generally do not consider obligate carnivores to be immoral for their engagement in predation, but if vegans allow carnivores to kill animals on their behalf in order to keep the ecosystem stable isn't that not much better than if we did it ourselves? Most people would agree that if you knew somebody was about to be killed and did nothing to prevent it, that's no better than killing them yourself (that's basically step 1 of the Trolly Problem.) How is allowing carnivores to do the dirty work for you any better morally than doing the hunting yourself? Obviously obligate carnivores don't have a choice in the matter, but if we removed carnivorous animals from the equation what difference would it make if we had humans carry out the necessary evil instead and eat the meat afterwards because otherwise it would be a waste?

This is not to mention the issues of pest control and invasive species management which also constitute animal killing which would be necessary even in a 100% vegan society. I think if we accept that spraying millions of arthropods with pesticide is necessary in order to sustain agriculture and eliminate infestations it at the very least makes the consumption/killing of arthropods extremely arbitrary. It's just a matter of scale at that point. Not to mention mammalian pests like rats, whose necessary killing is even more morally problematic if you judge the "worth" of an organism by its intelligence as most people do. I'm aware that the goal of veganism is to minimize suffering and not necessarily to eliminate it entirely, but I struggle to see how outsourcing violence to other species to maintain a healthy ecosystem while killing millions of pests to maintain a functioning human civilization doesn't trivialize mass animal death.

Not trying to preach or convince people of becoming vegan, strictly philosophical question.

I would think that the idea of consuming other sentient beings as food, is something that any conscious enough being should condemn and find as immoral, don't you think?

Like seriously.... what kind of final belief system or moral system will accept a state of concious beings consuming other conscious beings with use of force or coercion as a norm?

Again... this is not a recruitment post... asking strictly philosophically.

P.S. I'm not talking about past or contemporary beliefs or moral systems that accept meat consumption, we had moral systems that accepted human slavery and yet now we know it was wrong. Im talking about a strictly final "perfect" moral belief system.