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
    86
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 days 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
      23
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • FoxyFerengi@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I think you mean Jainism? It isn’t Hindu.

        They also have a very strict vegetarian diet, they won’t even eat root vegetables so burrowing insects aren’t disturbed

        • faintwhenfree@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I mean defining new religion is always tricky, Hinduism is such a large collection of beliefs, if you go too wide Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism would unfold into Hinduism and if you go too narrow Hinduism is at best group of 12-13 separate religion.

          The deeper you look the more confusing it is, while Jain texts acknowledge certain “Hindu” deities like Indra, other parts of universe building are entirely different, and if they are different where did Indra come from?

          Anyway I like the distinction of dharmic religions and then defining sects such as Jain, Vaishnav, shaiva, Buddhism etc etc. They all have the concept of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. So they are all kind of interoperable in terms of lifestyle. There are sects of Hinduism that are more different than mainstream to the point it’d be hard to call them Hindu, but they self identify as Hindu, while there are sects of buddishm that are so similar to Hinduism, it’s unclear why they consider themselves a separate religion. I think at the end the distinctions between dharmic religion are always because of some geopolitical power game.

          Yeah but if you ask a jain they’d say they’re not Hindu. So take it for it means.

          • ReiRose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            22 hours ago

            I would argue Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism are as distinct as Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

            Which are the sects of Buddhism that are so similar to Hinduism? (Curiosity, not attack - i studied Buddhism in depth for my degree, but that was 20 years ago)

            • tree_frog_and_rain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              I would argue that Buddhism is as distinct from Hinduism as an agnostic is from the abrahamic faiths.

              If you really look at Buddhism, it’s a critique of Hindu concepts such as Atman.

              Of course it incorporates a lot of those concepts, because the Buddha was communicating his critique to folks who used those concepts.

              For example, the four brahmavajara’s are framed in a Hindu understanding of the godhead. That doesn’t mean the Buddha believed in Brahma beyond it’s conceptualization by Hindus.

              He was merely using it as a teaching device to point out the importance of the four immeasurable minds to a Brahmin who asked him what the mind of God is like.

              • ReiRose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 minutes ago

                I would argue that Buddhism is as distinct from Hinduism as an agnostic is from the abrahamic faiths.

                This is a great take. Buddhism is more a philosophy of a worldview than a religious worldview.

                Buddhism taking on concepts of other religions, even deities, is upaya (skilful means). Its a way draw as many people as possible out of suffering as possible. I seem to remember that’s the whole idea of mahayana Buddhism: getting as many people as possible at least partway towards enlightenment is better than only a few all the way.

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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.

    • UntitledQuitting@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Thank you for your well rounded and ernest perspective. That final sentence really gave me pause. And it’s nice to find a corner of the internet where vegans aren’t vilified immediately for existing

    • QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day 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
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day 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.

      • SirActionSack@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        For the western world motorbikes are largely a luxury. Don’t do the luxury thing AND don’t wear a dead animal seems like a reasonable position to take.

          • SirActionSack@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            I don’t think you understand.

            Not doing the activity that requires protective clothing is safer than doing the activity with protective clothing.

            For westerners motorcycle riding and leather jackets are luxuries so it seems the vegan solution would be to not ride and not buy leather.

        • jnod4@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          For the eastern world motorbikes and mopeds is all everyone has. Far from luxury

    • SolidShake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

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