three mentions across 2 paragraphs. all of the mentions imply that consent would somehow relieve accusations of exploitation, but that isn’t established in your article for a certainty, and at best i’d say it’s debatable. i don’t care to debate about it. it’s clear that the vulgar use of the term is unrelated entirely.
Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.
Also, not that it matters, but there are 10 mentions if you also search for “consensual”, but that’s not really here nor there.
If you don’t wish to debate, you’re free to not respond at any time.
Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.
it’s not clear that the vegan society would allow for any exploitation, consensual or otherwise, and to the extent that sometimes people consent to being exploited, there is no reason to believe that exploitation ceases to exist in those cases.
to be clear, dictionaries record the most common uses of terms. consulting a philosophy encyclopedia is not a good way to understand a term as it is used in vulgar vernacular.
If we we’re having a discussion about physics, presumably we would use the terminology of physics. If we are having a discussion about morality and ethics (fields of philosophy, that is) we should probably use the terminology of philosophy. If you want to play semantic games, play them by yourself.
Veganism is an ethical position and as such can only be properly understood in the context of ethics.
if the vegan society wants to create an additional carve-out for consensual exploitation in addition to its exceptions for practicability and possibility, it’s not as though they are unaware of these concepts. they have not done so, and there is no reason to believe they mean to do so.
We’re not talking about consensual exploitation. Were talking about behaviors that aren’t exploitation due to, or perhaps shown not to be so by consent. There’s no need to explicitly mention consent because a) it would needlessly complicate the definition, b) as a practical matter, it almost never actually arises except in these sorts of thought experiments, and c) it’s already included implicitly in the concept of exploitation.
Let’s look at our original thought experiment: “It’s vegan to eat someone who has consented to being eaten.”
Usually we don’t put too much thought into this sort of stuff because it doesn’t really come up much outside of tongue in cheek mention, but I digress.
OK, so off the bat, if you think about it, there are indeed some problems with this statement. There could be systemic issues that made them consent to something harmful because the transactional benefit outweighs the harm to them. So in that sense, you’re right, looking directly for exploitation is the more objectively vegan thing to do.
However what if they have a genuine desire to be eaten (non-injuriously or posthumously, hopefully) where there are no confounding influences like above? The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent, in this case, and indeed, without any form of consent the other party would have no way to know of their desire to be eaten.
I think maybe a more realistic example than eating someone would be “Is it vegan to honour someone’s organ-donor card?” That seems to me to be a fairly clearcut case of accepting consent as implying non-exploitation.
It’s implicit. If consent was given, it wouldn’t be exploitative. (And obviously, that’s contingent upon non-coersion.)
common definitions of exploitation make no mention of consent either.
What? Where are you looking, the dictionary?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
Consent is mentioned plenty.
three mentions across 2 paragraphs. all of the mentions imply that consent would somehow relieve accusations of exploitation, but that isn’t established in your article for a certainty, and at best i’d say it’s debatable. i don’t care to debate about it. it’s clear that the vulgar use of the term is unrelated entirely.
Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.
Also, not that it matters, but there are 10 mentions if you also search for “consensual”, but that’s not really here nor there.
If you don’t wish to debate, you’re free to not respond at any time.
it’s not clear that the vegan society would allow for any exploitation, consensual or otherwise, and to the extent that sometimes people consent to being exploited, there is no reason to believe that exploitation ceases to exist in those cases.
encyclopedias are not dictionaries
An astute observation. Good thing I get all my knowledge from dictionaries so I can have a paper thin understanding of everything.
to be clear, dictionaries record the most common uses of terms. consulting a philosophy encyclopedia is not a good way to understand a term as it is used in vulgar vernacular.
If we we’re having a discussion about physics, presumably we would use the terminology of physics. If we are having a discussion about morality and ethics (fields of philosophy, that is) we should probably use the terminology of philosophy. If you want to play semantic games, play them by yourself.
Veganism is an ethical position and as such can only be properly understood in the context of ethics.
if the vegan society wants to create an additional carve-out for consensual exploitation in addition to its exceptions for practicability and possibility, it’s not as though they are unaware of these concepts. they have not done so, and there is no reason to believe they mean to do so.
We’re not talking about consensual exploitation. Were talking about behaviors that aren’t exploitation due to, or perhaps shown not to be so by consent. There’s no need to explicitly mention consent because a) it would needlessly complicate the definition, b) as a practical matter, it almost never actually arises except in these sorts of thought experiments, and c) it’s already included implicitly in the concept of exploitation.
Let’s look at our original thought experiment: “It’s vegan to eat someone who has consented to being eaten.”
Usually we don’t put too much thought into this sort of stuff because it doesn’t really come up much outside of tongue in cheek mention, but I digress.
OK, so off the bat, if you think about it, there are indeed some problems with this statement. There could be systemic issues that made them consent to something harmful because the transactional benefit outweighs the harm to them. So in that sense, you’re right, looking directly for exploitation is the more objectively vegan thing to do.
However what if they have a genuine desire to be eaten (non-injuriously or posthumously, hopefully) where there are no confounding influences like above? The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent, in this case, and indeed, without any form of consent the other party would have no way to know of their desire to be eaten.
I think maybe a more realistic example than eating someone would be “Is it vegan to honour someone’s organ-donor card?” That seems to me to be a fairly clearcut case of accepting consent as implying non-exploitation.