(2020-08-18, 03:34 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Just curious, what's the problem with eating honey ?
(2020-08-18, 09:19 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]I guess it’s about how they’re treated. I expect it something along the same lines as cows.
That's part of it. Sometimes, beekeepers replace the honey with some type of sugar water, depriving the bees of their preferred food (honey), and that's obviously mistreating the bees.
But even when bees are treated well, I still have a problem with honey. For example, I have been told (and have no reason to disbelieve), that, given the opportunity, bees store up an excess of honey - more than they need for the winter - and that the more considerate of beekeepers simply source honey from that excess.
To me, though, this is like somebody saying to me: "Oh, hey, your larder is well-stocked, so I'm just going to help myself to a bunch of the excess food in it whether you like it or not. After all, there's more than enough in there, and more than enough time for you to restock it."
I wouldn't accept that as a valid justification for thieving what is mine, and I don't accept it either in the case of thieving excess honey from bees.
Now, tim asks in a later post:
(2020-08-18, 09:32 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Without trying to be facetious, should bears be prevented from eating honey. I mean they just rip out the whole hive and stuff their face.
I think we have to ask to what extent we are responsible for suffering/conditions in the natural world, to what extent we are obligated to intervene in that world in a forceful way, and to what extent doing so would be counterproductive. Personally, my (philosophical) view tends towards non-interventionism. There are only limited circumstances in which I am comfortable with humans intervening systematically into the natural world. Preventing bears from thieving honey in the wild from bees is not one of them. Nor do I believe that veganism implies that it ought to be. Veganism, for me, is much more about eliminating
human-caused animal suffering than about eliminating the innate animal suffering in the natural world. Philosophically, I tend to trust that the natural world is God's - however imperfect - Creation, and that I (we) know and understand so little about how and why that world works as it does that I (we) would be more likely to cause
additional suffering by intervening into that world than to minimise the suffering within it.
That leads me to that with which tim followed his question about bears:
(2020-08-18, 09:32 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]If we're going to stop all suffering we have to stop ALL suffering
This isn't the principle upon which I base my veganism though, because I don't think - short of Divine intervention - that it is even
possible to stop ALL suffering. My veganism is instead based upon the principle of eliminating
avoidable suffering, especially in the sense in which I described above: that suffering which is caused directly by
humans.
I am pretty sure that if you think about it, trying to be fair, tim, you will accept that this is a reasonable approach. We would have to be God(s) for it to be otherwise.
And you pretty much acknowledge that you
do recognise why the principle "that we should stop ALL suffering" would be an unreasonable one to adopt with this:
(2020-08-18, 09:32 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think even attempting such an exercise may create hell on earth, instead.
Right. That's what I'm saying. An overly interventionist approach towards the natural world would be foolish. Instead, let's focus on the world
we have created, where we have a more reasonable chance of creating
heaven on Earth.
And I want to respond to one more thing from your later post, tim:
(2020-08-18, 09:32 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]It just (re) occurred to me with reference to vegans, as to how they know that vegetables and fruit don't feel pain. An answer that merely states they don't have a central nervous system or something along those lines won't do, however.
This has come up several times already in this thread, but I don't expect you to dig back into it, so, somewhat repeating that which has already been said in earlier posts:
There
are a lot of vegans who would deny plant sentience, but I am not one of them; hence, I am more strictly speaking a fruitarian than a vegan. I try to avoid harm to and killing of plants as well as animals. Neverthless, I accept the more strictly vegan argument that the animals that we eat consume so many plants themselves that veganism is by far a kinder diet towards plants than a standard omnivorous diet anyway. And I recognise that there is a degree of harm towards and killing of plants which is inevitable given that agricultural land must be cleared and kept clear - I just think that we should try to minimise this.
Regarding your suggestion that
fruit too feels pain, my own view is that this is unlikely for various reasons. For culinary (sweet) fruit - apples, bananas, etc - and (non-sweet) vegetable-like fruits - capsicums, pumpkins, etc - it is unlikely because plants produce this type of fruit
so that it can be eaten (in return for its seeds being spread far and wide), and it is unlikely that plants would build pain into their reproductive processes by design. For (that which I count as) fruit like nuts, seeds, grains, cereals, etc, which are essentially reproductive units, my sense is that these are not so much living as potential lives; that it is only when they germinate that they attain sentience, and that prior to that they are dormant (and insentient). I could be wrong about all this, it just seems most likely to me.
