![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d82718c7-5579-4676-8e2e-97b4188f10d3.png)
Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.
can you substantiate this?
Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.
can you substantiate this?
I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation
you have no idea what my understanding is. that’s not the subject of our discussion. don’t make this personal.
we are discussing the vegan society’s understanding.
the barest definition is a synonym of “use”. the vegan society could clear up this ambiguity but they have chosen not to do so, and there is no reason to assume they prefer a special definition of exploitation.
The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent,
no, it’s not. it’s exploitation by the barest definition, like exploiting a fallow field or a forest. the definition of exploitation can by synonymously defined as “use”. using a corpse is exploiting it. using a corpse which has, with informed consent, been consigned for use is still exploitation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
encyclopedias are not dictionaries
common definitions of exploitation make no mention of consent either.
veganism eschews all exploitation. there is no carve out for consent in the vegan society’s definition
I asked the question I meant to ask
, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.
right but this is not enough evidence to assume it is immoral. we need some reason to believe it is immoral, or it is probably ok
what is a better use for grass than to feed cows?
calling me names doesn’t change the fact that I’m right
no one at the store has free will, but I do?
you’re free to not respond at any time.