• SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    14 days ago

    Adopting non-human animals that would otherwise be killed for lack of facilities to care for them is basically the only way a vegan can end up with individual custody.

    That’s still owning an animal when it hasn’t consented to being owned.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      14 days ago

      In medicine there is a concept called “implied consent”. Suppose you come across a human who is dying, they are not able to say that they would like you to save their life. You are assumed to have consent to try, assuming they have specifically not refused consent (e.g. through an advanced care directive) because there is the implication that they would prefer to live than die.

      There is not really a good reason to apply this concept only to humans. For example, if you saw a train bearing down on an oblivious wombat moving the wombat off the tracks (or scaring them off or whatever) is obviously something you should try, despite generally having moral reservations about interfering in their life, because wombats generally aren’t trying to commit suicide.

      We can assume most abandoned animals that were formerly pets (or in entertainment industries or whatever) would like to go on living given that they continue to try staying alive. Although approaching that as ownership is definitely non-vegan, like if you take one into your life with a mindset that you can just stop caring for them or sideline their needs when inconvenient that is not vegan.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      Veganism is centered around minimizing harm either directly or indirectly. Why are you so focused on consent?