Now that we have established that this is not about absolutes, it should also be clear that compromises are possible. You probably don't do this consciously, but you are continuously balancing self preservation (or egoism, and can you even tell where the line between two is, exactly?) and your other morals. If you sometimes use cars or planes instead of going on foot, hell, if you use a bike instead of going on foot or use shoes instead of going barefoot. If you live in a house, consider the whole dependency tree of a house (land, work, building supplies, work creating the building supplies, supplies for creating the building supplies and so on recursively) and the myriad ways this kills/harms animals and the negative ecological impact this has. Examples of how you can't follow them are plentiful: If you give anyone money (in exchange for anything) whom you know not to follow your morals, you are supporting them in not following your morals and acting against your own morals. For practically relevant morals such as those concerned here, you can't always follow them, which is why phrasing them as above is useful. Gelatin may sometimes be such a case.įollowing moral goals is equivalent to minimizing the ways in which you act against those moral goals. I make the case that in those cases, it doesn't follow from your morals (when you include at least self-preservation as a moral good too) that you can't use animal product so that in some cases, it is justified to use them. The argument applies to several reasons for living veg*n, for example not wanting to exploit animals and trying to limit the ecological impact one makes. On the other hand when it comes to an ethical framework based on morals frequently taken as the reason for veg*anism, I can argue in favour of gelatin, to a degree. Concerning the usage of the words vegetarian and vegan, by definition gelatin is not any of the two, so the question is moot.
0 kommentar(er)
