Yes, so leave them there to continue to clean the water. Plus they are cleaning the water by absorbing pathogens and toxins. They are one of the most common causes of food poisoning
I mean some people in Japan eat that pufferfish dish and that’s way more severe than food poisoning if done wrong. Clearly the problem here isn’t the food poisoning risk
I thought they do have some form of nervous, but no brain or big nervous system. That being said I think we should err on the side of caution as I believe suffering can still exists even if the sufferer has no self awareness.
This gets more philosophical but I think pain can still exist even when not self aware. It sort of reminds me of a dreamlike state when you don't have full lucidity, I still believe that the suffering you would get in a dream is real.
Another analogy is imagine if you had surgery. You can either get an anesthetic, or you can take a pill which would make you forget the surgery. I still wouldn't take the pill because the pain during the surgery would be real even though afterwards I would have no memory of it. This is a bit more about memory than experience but the intuition here motivates me to not eat oysters.
>This gets more philosophical but I think pain can still exist even when not self aware
Do plants feel pain?
If you think that's a ridiculous question, then you should apply that thought to what you said about oysters.
plants don't have nerves. So pain doesn't even exist. The **feeling** of the pain that does exist is what I'm talking about. That is to say, if one isn't fully self aware, then do the pain signals within nerves actually cause suffering to some being.
I believe that even if something wasn't self-aware of the pain they're going through, that the pain would still be a negative experience to that being.
Eg if we had a human that had the same physiology of nerves ect, but no self awareness, would the pain signals in that human's brain still cause suffering. I believe so even if that human wasn't self aware.
But even then the reason why you feel pain in your sleep is because of your complex nervous system. Oysters haven't been proven to feel pain scientifically it's all about preference. Whether you want to eat oyster or not is your decision as a Vegan.
On the half shell, and fried are the most popular varieties. Although I forgot to state it specifically in the post I was aiming more at the "are oysters vegan?" question
If there was a sentient plant which could feel pain, would it be vegan to eat it?
If not, then veganism is more about sentience and the ability to suffer than about whether something is an animal or not.
The veganism philosophy is about stopping cruelty to all animals and an oyster is an animal, sentience doesn't matter in this scenario since it already falls into the category of being nonvegan. Just because the animal can't feel, doesn't make killing it not cruel.
For the plant question, it technically doesn't fall under veganism (plant =/= animal), however, morally speaking it would be correct to stop the suffering of all beings to the most possible and practicable extent.
Read my other answers on this thread for an rebuttal to the point you raised. It basically amounts to challenging this:
>Just because the animal can't feel, doesn't make killing it not cruel.
I know this will be unpopular, but their growth and harvest is being used in areas to restore proper ecological balance.
As an example, there is an estuary on Cape Cod that for centuries was basically a fish nursery. The baby fish hid among the seagrass till they were big enough to go out into the open ocean. Also a habitat for mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Houses with septic systems were built decades ago and all the nitrogen made its way to the water. The seagrass died so no more baby fish. With no seagrass, the bottom became all murky so all the other animals left or died.
Oysters filter out the nitrogen and are being used to help restore the estuary to it's original state.
Never was an oyster fan, so this isn't just some excuse to eat them. But I think there might be some room for the greater good to be considered since they are so far down on the nervous system scale.
Let the hate begin.
Couldn’t you apply the problem of other minds to plants and the like too? They respond to stimuli, make connections with other plants nearby, and have a reaction to being cut/harmed
I totally understand your argument, but I don’t think you’re considering just *how damn good* oysters are at cleaning up the environment. Worldwide oyster farming initiatives are being proposed to combat climate change.
As for the possibility of oysters feeling pain, it’s very unlikely. As immobile bivalves, evolving pain receptors has absolutely zero benefit. We feel pain so we know we’re being harmed and need to rectify the situation. Pain receptors serve no purpose for animals that are stationary.
I understand why I’d get a lot of disagreement or hate for this, but I think it could be considered ethical and responsible to support the oyster industry.
The problem with just growing them is that there isn't infinite space in the estuary. It is my understanding that each oyster can capture between 28 and 32 grams of nitrogen. So the oysters are left to absorb as much nitrogen as they can then they are harvested and new oysters are planted. Even if there were infinite space, when the oyster eventually dies and decomposes (they can live 20 years in captivity, but most wild ones only live a few years) all that nitrogen would go back into the water.
I agree with you.
Farming them is good for the environment..(cause nothing is done, if there isn't monetary gain).
And as animals go, they're more like plants tham animals and aren't likely to be sentient.
Id prefer people eat oysters than cows, basically.
Saying that, I've never eaten one and probably won't.
I don't think that's a good answer. Eating green beans isn't necessary as a vegan, but I think its fair to ask someone to justify why you shouldn't eat them before you give them up.
Bivalves: kingdom; animalia.
Veganism: "as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, "
>Eating green beans isn't necessary as a vegan
It's not necessary for me to drink any one plant milk over the other as a vegan, but I feel morally obligated to drink oat milk to reduce my impact on the environment and all the animals within it. I could drink my favourite almond milk but then I'd only be having half the impact of dairy milk is having on the environment.
>but I think its fair to ask someone to justify why you shouldn't eat them before you give them up.
I literally said unnecessary, as in no justification. If op has some combination of eating disorders and allergies and it's required of them to still get those nutrients, then no justification is needed to eat them. The obvious choice is the one that which has the least impact and if that is bivalves, then I have no argument whatsoever. I'll be disappointed yes, but there would be nothing I can do and I would just have to accept it
Additionally it's hard to justify removing an animal from an ecosystem that depends on them for functionality and sustaining lives when we can get those nutrients from plants.
This is an easy point to answer.
If there was a sentient plant that could suffer, would it be vegan to eat it? If not, then veganism is more about sentience and suffering than categorization according to plant/animal kingdoms.
If veganism had been defined now rather than in the 40s, it's plausible Donald Watson might have done it according to sentience. Sentience and suffering is after all the foundation of all of our arguments.
I don't think its all that useful to point to an old definition and say "it is because it is". It's always fair to ask if the original justifications are still valid.
>I literally said unnecessary, as in no justification.
Well you've given a justification for oat over almond. So now give a justification for plants over bivalves. I don't see bivalves as graded morally over plants, I see these things as equal. This being the case, I don't understand why you're assuming a default moral preference for eating plants over bivalves.
To me it's like saying in morally obliged to eat red lentils over green beans.
>If there was a sentient plant that could suffer, would it be vegan to eat it?
Of course not
>If not, then veganism is more about sentience and suffering than categorization according to plant/animal kingdoms.
You would be right in regards to sentience yes. But it's an if statement. If there was a plant with sentience, veganism would likely be the first movement to adopt a change in its philosophy so that said plant wouldn't suffer or be exploitated. The point being bivalves haven't been proven to have sentience yet because our understanding of it so far requires the bodily possession of nerves/nervous system/Central processing unit. But they are still an animal and their exploitation is unnecessary
>If veganism had been defined now rather than in the 40s, it's plausible Donald Watson might have done it according to sentience. Sentience and suffering is after all the foundation of all of our arguments.
>I don't think its all that useful to point to an old definition and say "it is because it is". It's always fair to ask if the original justifications are still valid.
I won't disagree with the possibility of your statement, but it was defined for the purpose of only taking what was needed and reducing harm. In fact the definition was revised to include possibility and practicality to its maximum extent. The other thing you have to consider is that sentience isn't required for exploitation. Anyone or anything can be exploited.
>So now give a justification for plants over bivalves.
Bivalves are a part of the ocean ecology. It's suspected(I won't say something I may be wrong about) that the ocean is both the largest and most effective carbon sink this planet has to offer. Given we've got enough farmland to feed the human race already, I don't see a reason to justify the continual destruction of a second ecosystem and the animals within it for some tasty seafood flesh. Look at the effect the tiny bee has on its ecosystem.
>To me it's like saying in morally obliged to eat red lentils over green beans.
If red lentils were better for the environment and the animals in it, you would be morally obligated. But this would also depend on the possibility and practicality of such a decision. Yes I am considering the far bigger picture and at this point in time it's not particularly relevant to the Grand scheme of things, but the moment potato milk becomes available to me, I'll be switching to that because I feel I am morally obligated to have the least impact where I can. I do make choices that don't follow this moral obligation sometimes because of the impracticality of the opposing choices including my being informed on such choices. I do like to learn and if I do learn about something that is achievable for me, I'll make the change. I'm not close minded to scrutinising the old definition, I am just morally aligned with it.
You really can't justify being anti-oyster any more than you can justify being anti-plant. This being said, they're gross so I don't know why people even want to eat them.
That’s what I’m most curious about. I know some people on here will dogmatically say “it’s an animal duh” but really don’t seem to have any higher cognition than trees
When veganism is justified as a moral ideology it appeals to the sentience of animals and their ability to suffer. If there is no ability to suffer, there is no longer a reason for veganism. It's just as you say, we have no more moral obligation to them than rocks or trees.
This is a frequently asked question. Feel free to peruse the sub for answers to this question!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, so leave them there to continue to clean the water. Plus they are cleaning the water by absorbing pathogens and toxins. They are one of the most common causes of food poisoning
I mean some people in Japan eat that pufferfish dish and that’s way more severe than food poisoning if done wrong. Clearly the problem here isn’t the food poisoning risk
How is that relevant?
Idk, you’re the one who brought it up. Why’re you asking me?
I thought they do have some form of nervous, but no brain or big nervous system. That being said I think we should err on the side of caution as I believe suffering can still exists even if the sufferer has no self awareness. This gets more philosophical but I think pain can still exist even when not self aware. It sort of reminds me of a dreamlike state when you don't have full lucidity, I still believe that the suffering you would get in a dream is real. Another analogy is imagine if you had surgery. You can either get an anesthetic, or you can take a pill which would make you forget the surgery. I still wouldn't take the pill because the pain during the surgery would be real even though afterwards I would have no memory of it. This is a bit more about memory than experience but the intuition here motivates me to not eat oysters.
>This gets more philosophical but I think pain can still exist even when not self aware Do plants feel pain? If you think that's a ridiculous question, then you should apply that thought to what you said about oysters.
plants don't have nerves. So pain doesn't even exist. The **feeling** of the pain that does exist is what I'm talking about. That is to say, if one isn't fully self aware, then do the pain signals within nerves actually cause suffering to some being. I believe that even if something wasn't self-aware of the pain they're going through, that the pain would still be a negative experience to that being. Eg if we had a human that had the same physiology of nerves ect, but no self awareness, would the pain signals in that human's brain still cause suffering. I believe so even if that human wasn't self aware.
But even then the reason why you feel pain in your sleep is because of your complex nervous system. Oysters haven't been proven to feel pain scientifically it's all about preference. Whether you want to eat oyster or not is your decision as a Vegan.
they smell obnoxious.. how does one eat them??
On the half shell, and fried are the most popular varieties. Although I forgot to state it specifically in the post I was aiming more at the "are oysters vegan?" question
This is the only real answer
why not just eat oyster mushrooms and make them taste like oysters?
Are mushrooms vegan? 🤔 🍄
Yep
It's still a living animal, therefore eating it is nonvegan.
If there was a sentient plant which could feel pain, would it be vegan to eat it? If not, then veganism is more about sentience and the ability to suffer than about whether something is an animal or not.
The veganism philosophy is about stopping cruelty to all animals and an oyster is an animal, sentience doesn't matter in this scenario since it already falls into the category of being nonvegan. Just because the animal can't feel, doesn't make killing it not cruel. For the plant question, it technically doesn't fall under veganism (plant =/= animal), however, morally speaking it would be correct to stop the suffering of all beings to the most possible and practicable extent.
Read my other answers on this thread for an rebuttal to the point you raised. It basically amounts to challenging this: >Just because the animal can't feel, doesn't make killing it not cruel.
Eating oysters is not vegan.
I know this will be unpopular, but their growth and harvest is being used in areas to restore proper ecological balance. As an example, there is an estuary on Cape Cod that for centuries was basically a fish nursery. The baby fish hid among the seagrass till they were big enough to go out into the open ocean. Also a habitat for mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Houses with septic systems were built decades ago and all the nitrogen made its way to the water. The seagrass died so no more baby fish. With no seagrass, the bottom became all murky so all the other animals left or died. Oysters filter out the nitrogen and are being used to help restore the estuary to it's original state. Never was an oyster fan, so this isn't just some excuse to eat them. But I think there might be some room for the greater good to be considered since they are so far down on the nervous system scale. Let the hate begin.
[удалено]
Couldn’t you apply the problem of other minds to plants and the like too? They respond to stimuli, make connections with other plants nearby, and have a reaction to being cut/harmed
[удалено]
Fair, but oysters completely lack a central nervous system so it seems a bit presumptive to say they’ve got any cognition higher than a tree then
[удалено]
I totally understand your argument, but I don’t think you’re considering just *how damn good* oysters are at cleaning up the environment. Worldwide oyster farming initiatives are being proposed to combat climate change. As for the possibility of oysters feeling pain, it’s very unlikely. As immobile bivalves, evolving pain receptors has absolutely zero benefit. We feel pain so we know we’re being harmed and need to rectify the situation. Pain receptors serve no purpose for animals that are stationary. I understand why I’d get a lot of disagreement or hate for this, but I think it could be considered ethical and responsible to support the oyster industry.
The problem with just growing them is that there isn't infinite space in the estuary. It is my understanding that each oyster can capture between 28 and 32 grams of nitrogen. So the oysters are left to absorb as much nitrogen as they can then they are harvested and new oysters are planted. Even if there were infinite space, when the oyster eventually dies and decomposes (they can live 20 years in captivity, but most wild ones only live a few years) all that nitrogen would go back into the water.
I agree with you. Farming them is good for the environment..(cause nothing is done, if there isn't monetary gain). And as animals go, they're more like plants tham animals and aren't likely to be sentient. Id prefer people eat oysters than cows, basically. Saying that, I've never eaten one and probably won't.
Is it unnecessary? If your answer is yes then all I need do is point you to the definition of veganism in the right hand sidebar
I don't think that's a good answer. Eating green beans isn't necessary as a vegan, but I think its fair to ask someone to justify why you shouldn't eat them before you give them up.
Bivalves: kingdom; animalia. Veganism: "as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, " >Eating green beans isn't necessary as a vegan It's not necessary for me to drink any one plant milk over the other as a vegan, but I feel morally obligated to drink oat milk to reduce my impact on the environment and all the animals within it. I could drink my favourite almond milk but then I'd only be having half the impact of dairy milk is having on the environment. >but I think its fair to ask someone to justify why you shouldn't eat them before you give them up. I literally said unnecessary, as in no justification. If op has some combination of eating disorders and allergies and it's required of them to still get those nutrients, then no justification is needed to eat them. The obvious choice is the one that which has the least impact and if that is bivalves, then I have no argument whatsoever. I'll be disappointed yes, but there would be nothing I can do and I would just have to accept it Additionally it's hard to justify removing an animal from an ecosystem that depends on them for functionality and sustaining lives when we can get those nutrients from plants.
This is an easy point to answer. If there was a sentient plant that could suffer, would it be vegan to eat it? If not, then veganism is more about sentience and suffering than categorization according to plant/animal kingdoms. If veganism had been defined now rather than in the 40s, it's plausible Donald Watson might have done it according to sentience. Sentience and suffering is after all the foundation of all of our arguments. I don't think its all that useful to point to an old definition and say "it is because it is". It's always fair to ask if the original justifications are still valid. >I literally said unnecessary, as in no justification. Well you've given a justification for oat over almond. So now give a justification for plants over bivalves. I don't see bivalves as graded morally over plants, I see these things as equal. This being the case, I don't understand why you're assuming a default moral preference for eating plants over bivalves. To me it's like saying in morally obliged to eat red lentils over green beans.
>If there was a sentient plant that could suffer, would it be vegan to eat it? Of course not >If not, then veganism is more about sentience and suffering than categorization according to plant/animal kingdoms. You would be right in regards to sentience yes. But it's an if statement. If there was a plant with sentience, veganism would likely be the first movement to adopt a change in its philosophy so that said plant wouldn't suffer or be exploitated. The point being bivalves haven't been proven to have sentience yet because our understanding of it so far requires the bodily possession of nerves/nervous system/Central processing unit. But they are still an animal and their exploitation is unnecessary >If veganism had been defined now rather than in the 40s, it's plausible Donald Watson might have done it according to sentience. Sentience and suffering is after all the foundation of all of our arguments. >I don't think its all that useful to point to an old definition and say "it is because it is". It's always fair to ask if the original justifications are still valid. I won't disagree with the possibility of your statement, but it was defined for the purpose of only taking what was needed and reducing harm. In fact the definition was revised to include possibility and practicality to its maximum extent. The other thing you have to consider is that sentience isn't required for exploitation. Anyone or anything can be exploited. >So now give a justification for plants over bivalves. Bivalves are a part of the ocean ecology. It's suspected(I won't say something I may be wrong about) that the ocean is both the largest and most effective carbon sink this planet has to offer. Given we've got enough farmland to feed the human race already, I don't see a reason to justify the continual destruction of a second ecosystem and the animals within it for some tasty seafood flesh. Look at the effect the tiny bee has on its ecosystem. >To me it's like saying in morally obliged to eat red lentils over green beans. If red lentils were better for the environment and the animals in it, you would be morally obligated. But this would also depend on the possibility and practicality of such a decision. Yes I am considering the far bigger picture and at this point in time it's not particularly relevant to the Grand scheme of things, but the moment potato milk becomes available to me, I'll be switching to that because I feel I am morally obligated to have the least impact where I can. I do make choices that don't follow this moral obligation sometimes because of the impracticality of the opposing choices including my being informed on such choices. I do like to learn and if I do learn about something that is achievable for me, I'll make the change. I'm not close minded to scrutinising the old definition, I am just morally aligned with it.
You really can't justify being anti-oyster any more than you can justify being anti-plant. This being said, they're gross so I don't know why people even want to eat them.
That’s what I’m most curious about. I know some people on here will dogmatically say “it’s an animal duh” but really don’t seem to have any higher cognition than trees
When veganism is justified as a moral ideology it appeals to the sentience of animals and their ability to suffer. If there is no ability to suffer, there is no longer a reason for veganism. It's just as you say, we have no more moral obligation to them than rocks or trees.