Comment

Wouldn’t this mean that if someone derives a sufficient number of utils from eating meat (enough that not eating it would be “impractical”), then eating meat is vegan?

source

Sort:hotnew top

DarthFrodo@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
If someone is literally starving and there’s only meat available, it can be argued that it would be vegan to eat it in that situation.

source
- blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  No, I mean like…
  
  Suppose where you live and where you work are fixed. You can drive and murder animals via climate change. Or you can ride your bike. But driving takes 30 min, and riding your bike takes 2 h. There is nothing dangerous or otherwise bad about riding your bike - it just takes an extra 3 h out of your day that you’d rather spend playing video games. As per the above definition, you can murder animals via climate change because it is “impractical” (ie, unpleasant because you are impatient) to ride your bike, and still call yourself a vegan.
  
  Now, a new scenario. Suppose you are avoiding driving and are riding your bike 2h each way to get to work. But on the way to and from work, you pass a McD’s. Every time you pass it, your mouth waters. You are hungry. You really like the taste of their animal products. And the taste of a quarter pounder with cheese fills you with memories of a happy childhood. You want it so much, in fact, that not stopping there to buy a hamburger creates twice as much negative utility for you as biking instead of driving - ie, is twice as inconvenient to avoid eating a hamburger. Given this scenario and the above definition, eating hamburgers is vegan if you like them enough.
  
  source
  - commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    it’s utilitarian, but not vegan
    
    source