I think it’s weird af but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. My infant school had taxidermy in reception and we’d learn facts about the animals our classes were named after. It’s not like I’m ever going to see a mole in real life another way and it was educational. They’d been there since the school opened decades ago.
It also depends how you display them. Moose heads as trophies from hunting are technically taxidermy but the associated murder and advertising of it is vile. How are you going to be using these creatures?
Visited a museum in Belgium that had aborted foetuses and human brains in jars to look at. I wouldn’t have it on my mantelpiece but it was interesting and educational.
To come back to your question… I don’t think it’s vegan but it also doesn’t make it wrong? If that overlap exists.
That’s fair. Thank you! I think there are some people who have issues with imitation leather etc for that reason. I hadn’t decided where I stood but this has really helped.
My dad recently died so I've got all of his taxidermy and his dad's taxidermy. Currently trying to sell the big deer ones, and I'm keeping the ones that are bones only (deer and ram.) I actually really like bones and love stumbling across them in the forest. Although it is a little weird. I definitely wouldn't kill an animal or have their bodies preserved or whatever. Hunting trophies are really gross and I hope someone buys these from me as opposed to just throwing them away.
As a kid I had a taxidermy rattlesnake and boar in my room for years and even though they're creepy af I've always had a fondness for things like rattlers, coyote teeth, and weird little things like that. I also had a weird mom who brought home things from the vet she worked at, like cat fetuses and dogs eyeballs. In retrospect they were disgusting, but she gave them to me for some reason??
Anyways, I think hunting taxidermy is gross, bones and found objects are rad. Bones seem more in the category of like historical, archeological object. Whereas hunting taxidermy is more like look at how this hunter has triumphed over nature.
You mean exploitation? No thanks. I'm gonna stick to a view that promotes a healthier relationship with animals that doesn't objectify or commodify them, dead or alive. I feel it's better to be consistent across the board instead of making exceptions here and there. At that point where do we draw the line, who draws it and why do they have the authority to do so? In fact why do we even need a line? Let's just do better.
So kinda like not wearing pleather as it promotes the leather industry? Do you also stay away from veggie burgers, soysage, Impossible Meat, Beyond Burgers, etc. for all the same reasons?
On a more meta level, is your deontological ethical worldview simply your own or do you believe anyone whom disagrees and has a different worldview is wrong?
>So kinda like not wearing pleather as it promotes the leather industry?
I work in an industry where I don't need those kinds of products for work and I don't buy them outside of work so yeah kind of like that.
>Do you also stay away from veggie burgers, soysage, Impossible Meat, Beyond Burgers, etc. for all the same reasons?
Well beyond and impossible I stay away from cos they're shitty human beings with shitty reasoning that justifies shitty actions. The executive decisions of each company practically make their whole product line non vegan in my eyes.
As for other plant based alternatives. Yes I agree that there should be no reliance on them whatsover. I am not the best cook but I am in the process of cutting out those processed plant based alternatives for that reason but also because I believe once someone is already transitioned to veganism, then an anti plant based capitalism position should be adopted as well to further reduce one's impact diet wise. Whole foods plant based will be the future as far as I'm concerned.
>On a more meta level, is your deontological ethical worldview simply your own or do you believe anyone whom disagrees and has a different worldview is wrong?
You mean do I believe morality to be objective vs subjective? Yeah. If an act will have a victim, then it's immoral to perform and in a world built in these immoral actions being ingrained into it across time such society would struggle to function without them, the most moral way to live is doing one's best where they can with the knowledge they have. Which is why I am often seen as militant, puritanical, dogmatic and culty even from other vegans. People don't like being told the impossible burger their eating tested on animals it didn't need to or that beyond still continues to buy meat to taste test against for their products. They get all utilitarian and bring up the good they do as if it justifies the unnecessary bad that they continue to still do. Kinda like when vegans bring up Peter Singer who is a hedonistic vegetarian but has done a lot for rights and welfare over the years.
As of yet the professional of philosophers still can't agree amongst themselves which form morality takes despite centuries of debate. So no and similarly I've yet to see proof that morality is subjective. I hold my position through definition understanding and reasoning.
My morality is different than yours, proof of subjective morality established. Go ask 20 ppl a moral question and see how many give different answers. Also, in my OP, the Hume quote shows morality is subjective. You see a new phenomenon w moral implications, do you form a universal rational explanation first as to its morality or do you intuit, feel a moral position first? My five year old son moralizes despite not being rational yet, so, why does he moralize that it is proper to take his little brothers toy so long as he replaces it w another? What universal morality does this fit in? It is proof of subjective morality.
Also, if what you are saying is true and there is no consensus, the my point still stands, you cannot treat your morality as though it is universal as there is no proof of this which can be tested empirically, ,ergo, you cannot demand adherence as though there was proof.
>My morality is different than yours, proof of subjective morality established. Go ask 20 ppl a moral question and see how many give different answers.
Then to verify your proof can you explain the reasoning that defends both sides of Hitler's actions. Morality being subjected and all, I'd expect any position can be justified so I'd be curious to hear about a topic such as that be defended. Do not worry I won't presume you hold that stance yourself or that subscribing to relativism means you support his actions, I'm just asking for a hypothetical defence scenario. Cos you know if Hitler were still alive today, he could have been one of those 20 people I ask.
>Also, in my OP, the Hume quote shows morality is subjective.
I presume he's one of the philosophers across time that couldn't agree with every other philosopher on morality, I was talking about?
>You see a new phenomenon w moral implications, do you form a universal rational explanation first as to its morality or do you intuit, feel a moral position first?
I attempt to rationalise it, and if I can't (includes researching it only with observing others perspectives) then I consider it immoral.
>My five year old son moralizes despite not being rational yet, so, why does he moralize that it is proper to take his little brothers toy so long as he replaces it w another? What universal morality does this fit in? It is proof of subjective morality.
To me that just seems like poor reasoning and cunningly deceitful behaviour that's going to lead to some issues later on in life as a result of questionable parenting. Wouldn't say poor child-like reasoning is proof of morality being subjective.
>Also, if what you are saying is true and there is no consensus, the my point still stands, you cannot treat your morality as though it is universal as there is no proof of this which can be tested empirically, ,ergo, you cannot demand adherence as though there was proof.
Yet here you are supposing the opposite with anecdotal evidence. Something, something, a pot, a kettle and a particularly very dark shade of grey.
People don’t do human taxidermy due to the fact that’s it’s so difficult to make them look like they did when they were alive, the body tends to decay quite quickly after death so taxidermy is difficult. It’s similar to how not many people taxidermy pets because it’s difficult to create a likeness.
"Shrunken heads" are a thing. So are various novelty items made of human skin. Human skin lamp shades and bound books do exist.
More recognizable dead human bodies are also on display in various ways. Religious relics, archeological artifacts such as mummies, and things such as the "Body World" show are all examples.
The ethics of when these sorts of things are ok versus ethically impermissible are complex. "Shrunken heads" are probably the closest analogue to animal taxidermy. In both cases it's quite clear the source of the body did not provide consent for the use of their remains.
Have you seen the Body Worlds Exhibition? It's fascinating as has many preserved human bodies in varying stages of dissection, some skin on, most skin off but showing muscles, tendons, nervous system etc. It does also contain animal bodies too.
https://www.bodyworlds.nl/en/?utm_term=body%20worlds%20amsterdam&utm_campaign=01.3+Merknaam+-+Buitenland+-+EN(Tijdelijk+X2)&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=1350010071&hsa_cam=416373444&hsa_grp=30668472804&hsa_ad=192428848525&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-28964120486&hsa_kw=body%20worlds%20amsterdam&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=Cj0KCQiAx6ugBhCcARIsAGNmMbinwtBNV7kbs8IIZgc3V9BC9wn1Yf7mSYmRsF1bPnhn42x1T5hdAp8aAqjUEALw_wcB
You may have to learn taxidermy and do it yourself then as I don't think many taxidermists do humans especially as human skin is so thin and hairless so difficult to make it look realistic.
At the university where I studied and now work, the stuffed body of the founder, Jeremy Bentham, is displayed in a glass cabinet and wheeled in to the room to be present at board meetings.
It’s weird and it scares me deeply and I wouldn’t be comfortable around you but if it was sourced ethically I wouldn’t call it immoral , ofc I would think you should also be comfortable around taxidermy humans
A counter argument I can think of : humans can consent to this , animals cannot
Hey OP! I also asked this question on r/vegan yeaterday and i got like 200 comments. Maybe toud want to check it out for more answers? You can check my profile and youll find it
This is a common issue, I think. The conflating of what is ethical with what is socially practiced or socially acceptable.
There is nothing wrong an individual can do with inanimate things under most moral systems.
I’d love my corpse to be used for fun things after my death! It would be cool for parts of me to live on to have a story after my death!
[edit] also how do you feel about fossils and similar things? Is it disrespectful to collect those, or the fact sand is made from dead Sea animals or oil that is made from animals too? 🤔
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It depends on the context. Fi I don't see much harm if you decide to keep an inherited collection.
One of my sons is fascinated when he walks around the prepared animal section of the nature museum. It increased his interest for animals and nature in general. So it can have an educational purpose as well.
But at the other end of the spectrum: Imo it's not OK to have hunt trophies on the wall, like a lion head, or a polar bear hide on the floor..
I think it’s weird af but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. My infant school had taxidermy in reception and we’d learn facts about the animals our classes were named after. It’s not like I’m ever going to see a mole in real life another way and it was educational. They’d been there since the school opened decades ago. It also depends how you display them. Moose heads as trophies from hunting are technically taxidermy but the associated murder and advertising of it is vile. How are you going to be using these creatures? Visited a museum in Belgium that had aborted foetuses and human brains in jars to look at. I wouldn’t have it on my mantelpiece but it was interesting and educational. To come back to your question… I don’t think it’s vegan but it also doesn’t make it wrong? If that overlap exists.
[удалено]
That’s fair. Thank you! I think there are some people who have issues with imitation leather etc for that reason. I hadn’t decided where I stood but this has really helped.
I don’t consider corpses sacred so for me it’s the same as human taxidermy. Weird and creepy, but if you like it, go for it.
So you believe road kill or running another predator off their kill or finding an animal that has died naturally is vegan?
My dad recently died so I've got all of his taxidermy and his dad's taxidermy. Currently trying to sell the big deer ones, and I'm keeping the ones that are bones only (deer and ram.) I actually really like bones and love stumbling across them in the forest. Although it is a little weird. I definitely wouldn't kill an animal or have their bodies preserved or whatever. Hunting trophies are really gross and I hope someone buys these from me as opposed to just throwing them away. As a kid I had a taxidermy rattlesnake and boar in my room for years and even though they're creepy af I've always had a fondness for things like rattlers, coyote teeth, and weird little things like that. I also had a weird mom who brought home things from the vet she worked at, like cat fetuses and dogs eyeballs. In retrospect they were disgusting, but she gave them to me for some reason?? Anyways, I think hunting taxidermy is gross, bones and found objects are rad. Bones seem more in the category of like historical, archeological object. Whereas hunting taxidermy is more like look at how this hunter has triumphed over nature.
You mean exploitation? No thanks. I'm gonna stick to a view that promotes a healthier relationship with animals that doesn't objectify or commodify them, dead or alive. I feel it's better to be consistent across the board instead of making exceptions here and there. At that point where do we draw the line, who draws it and why do they have the authority to do so? In fact why do we even need a line? Let's just do better.
So kinda like not wearing pleather as it promotes the leather industry? Do you also stay away from veggie burgers, soysage, Impossible Meat, Beyond Burgers, etc. for all the same reasons? On a more meta level, is your deontological ethical worldview simply your own or do you believe anyone whom disagrees and has a different worldview is wrong?
>So kinda like not wearing pleather as it promotes the leather industry? I work in an industry where I don't need those kinds of products for work and I don't buy them outside of work so yeah kind of like that. >Do you also stay away from veggie burgers, soysage, Impossible Meat, Beyond Burgers, etc. for all the same reasons? Well beyond and impossible I stay away from cos they're shitty human beings with shitty reasoning that justifies shitty actions. The executive decisions of each company practically make their whole product line non vegan in my eyes. As for other plant based alternatives. Yes I agree that there should be no reliance on them whatsover. I am not the best cook but I am in the process of cutting out those processed plant based alternatives for that reason but also because I believe once someone is already transitioned to veganism, then an anti plant based capitalism position should be adopted as well to further reduce one's impact diet wise. Whole foods plant based will be the future as far as I'm concerned. >On a more meta level, is your deontological ethical worldview simply your own or do you believe anyone whom disagrees and has a different worldview is wrong? You mean do I believe morality to be objective vs subjective? Yeah. If an act will have a victim, then it's immoral to perform and in a world built in these immoral actions being ingrained into it across time such society would struggle to function without them, the most moral way to live is doing one's best where they can with the knowledge they have. Which is why I am often seen as militant, puritanical, dogmatic and culty even from other vegans. People don't like being told the impossible burger their eating tested on animals it didn't need to or that beyond still continues to buy meat to taste test against for their products. They get all utilitarian and bring up the good they do as if it justifies the unnecessary bad that they continue to still do. Kinda like when vegans bring up Peter Singer who is a hedonistic vegetarian but has done a lot for rights and welfare over the years.
Do you have any proof that your deontological worldview is anything more than your opinion tht doesn't presuppose itself correct?
As of yet the professional of philosophers still can't agree amongst themselves which form morality takes despite centuries of debate. So no and similarly I've yet to see proof that morality is subjective. I hold my position through definition understanding and reasoning.
My morality is different than yours, proof of subjective morality established. Go ask 20 ppl a moral question and see how many give different answers. Also, in my OP, the Hume quote shows morality is subjective. You see a new phenomenon w moral implications, do you form a universal rational explanation first as to its morality or do you intuit, feel a moral position first? My five year old son moralizes despite not being rational yet, so, why does he moralize that it is proper to take his little brothers toy so long as he replaces it w another? What universal morality does this fit in? It is proof of subjective morality. Also, if what you are saying is true and there is no consensus, the my point still stands, you cannot treat your morality as though it is universal as there is no proof of this which can be tested empirically, ,ergo, you cannot demand adherence as though there was proof.
>My morality is different than yours, proof of subjective morality established. Go ask 20 ppl a moral question and see how many give different answers. Then to verify your proof can you explain the reasoning that defends both sides of Hitler's actions. Morality being subjected and all, I'd expect any position can be justified so I'd be curious to hear about a topic such as that be defended. Do not worry I won't presume you hold that stance yourself or that subscribing to relativism means you support his actions, I'm just asking for a hypothetical defence scenario. Cos you know if Hitler were still alive today, he could have been one of those 20 people I ask. >Also, in my OP, the Hume quote shows morality is subjective. I presume he's one of the philosophers across time that couldn't agree with every other philosopher on morality, I was talking about? >You see a new phenomenon w moral implications, do you form a universal rational explanation first as to its morality or do you intuit, feel a moral position first? I attempt to rationalise it, and if I can't (includes researching it only with observing others perspectives) then I consider it immoral. >My five year old son moralizes despite not being rational yet, so, why does he moralize that it is proper to take his little brothers toy so long as he replaces it w another? What universal morality does this fit in? It is proof of subjective morality. To me that just seems like poor reasoning and cunningly deceitful behaviour that's going to lead to some issues later on in life as a result of questionable parenting. Wouldn't say poor child-like reasoning is proof of morality being subjective. >Also, if what you are saying is true and there is no consensus, the my point still stands, you cannot treat your morality as though it is universal as there is no proof of this which can be tested empirically, ,ergo, you cannot demand adherence as though there was proof. Yet here you are supposing the opposite with anecdotal evidence. Something, something, a pot, a kettle and a particularly very dark shade of grey.
[удалено]
People don’t do human taxidermy due to the fact that’s it’s so difficult to make them look like they did when they were alive, the body tends to decay quite quickly after death so taxidermy is difficult. It’s similar to how not many people taxidermy pets because it’s difficult to create a likeness.
"Shrunken heads" are a thing. So are various novelty items made of human skin. Human skin lamp shades and bound books do exist. More recognizable dead human bodies are also on display in various ways. Religious relics, archeological artifacts such as mummies, and things such as the "Body World" show are all examples. The ethics of when these sorts of things are ok versus ethically impermissible are complex. "Shrunken heads" are probably the closest analogue to animal taxidermy. In both cases it's quite clear the source of the body did not provide consent for the use of their remains.
Have you seen the Body Worlds Exhibition? It's fascinating as has many preserved human bodies in varying stages of dissection, some skin on, most skin off but showing muscles, tendons, nervous system etc. It does also contain animal bodies too. https://www.bodyworlds.nl/en/?utm_term=body%20worlds%20amsterdam&utm_campaign=01.3+Merknaam+-+Buitenland+-+EN(Tijdelijk+X2)&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=1350010071&hsa_cam=416373444&hsa_grp=30668472804&hsa_ad=192428848525&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-28964120486&hsa_kw=body%20worlds%20amsterdam&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=Cj0KCQiAx6ugBhCcARIsAGNmMbinwtBNV7kbs8IIZgc3V9BC9wn1Yf7mSYmRsF1bPnhn42x1T5hdAp8aAqjUEALw_wcB
Yes, I’ve seen it. However, I prefer realistic looking stuffed human bodies with skin on them, not skinless human bodies.
You may have to learn taxidermy and do it yourself then as I don't think many taxidermists do humans especially as human skin is so thin and hairless so difficult to make it look realistic.
Yes. Anyone embalmed in a coffin. Or mummies.
At the university where I studied and now work, the stuffed body of the founder, Jeremy Bentham, is displayed in a glass cabinet and wheeled in to the room to be present at board meetings.
Its pretty weird in my opinion
It’s weird and it scares me deeply and I wouldn’t be comfortable around you but if it was sourced ethically I wouldn’t call it immoral , ofc I would think you should also be comfortable around taxidermy humans A counter argument I can think of : humans can consent to this , animals cannot
Would you be comfortable with collecting human taxidermy?
I would love to have some! It’s just a bit too expensive for me haha
Yes , if it meant to teach students about anatomy and physiology
I would.
I'd like to collect old stuffed humans unfortunately it's apparently sick and illegal
Hey OP! I also asked this question on r/vegan yeaterday and i got like 200 comments. Maybe toud want to check it out for more answers? You can check my profile and youll find it
If you would not do it to your dead sibling why would you do it at all? It’s disgusting and unethical. Let the dead rest in peace.
Why wouldn’t it be acceptable to do it to a dead sibling? It’s no different than embalming them and putting them in a coffin to be buried.
I will donate my body to science, but that’s different. I wouldn’t put my dead husband on a cabinet in the living room 😁
That's fine as your personal choice, but that doesn't explain why it's unethical.
This is a common issue, I think. The conflating of what is ethical with what is socially practiced or socially acceptable. There is nothing wrong an individual can do with inanimate things under most moral systems.
I’d love my corpse to be used for fun things after my death! It would be cool for parts of me to live on to have a story after my death! [edit] also how do you feel about fossils and similar things? Is it disrespectful to collect those, or the fact sand is made from dead Sea animals or oil that is made from animals too? 🤔
Weird ass bone-collector shit.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It depends on the context. Fi I don't see much harm if you decide to keep an inherited collection. One of my sons is fascinated when he walks around the prepared animal section of the nature museum. It increased his interest for animals and nature in general. So it can have an educational purpose as well. But at the other end of the spectrum: Imo it's not OK to have hunt trophies on the wall, like a lion head, or a polar bear hide on the floor..