The Use of Eggs

[Sam Hillyer]

I am interested to know what the spectrum of views on the use of eggs by people who care for chickens, ducks, quail etc are?

 

As a vegan is it wrong to make use of what could be termed a by product?

The bird is still going to produce the egg every time she ovulates. Should the egg be thrown away to make a moral point, or is it acceptable to use the eggs from the birds you care for?

 

I guess I'd like to hear discussion about people who have domesticated sheep, in specific the woolier breeds who may actually need to be shorn in hot climates, and then the use of what would now be a waste product should it not be used?

 

And as a final note, could somebody explain to me the ethics surrounding the keeping of honeybees and the use of their products as it is something I am currently ignorant to.

[Nick Dalzell]

the egg issue is one i have no idea about other than i have no problem with those who have adopted and/or rescued hens who have them on their own, no rooster required. the egg is just a period of a chicken. a part of their menstrual cycle. so if you can get past that 'yuck' factor and the fact they are full of bad (LDL) Cholesterol and not needed by our species, it's no different than using your pet rabbit's droppings as fertilizer.

 

HOWEVER, it is NOT A vegan food. so you cannot call yourself 'vegan' even if eating those types of eggs. same goes for milk coming from a calfless dairy cow. the dairy cow breeds produce little bits of milk all their lives (the industry itself has to force-impregnate them because it is not enough to sustain demand) and i don't see any problem other than, of course, it's not vegan and we do not need it

[Jordan Wyatt]

Hi Sam!

As a young Vegan from New Zealand, land of the Sheep (even though we have many, many times more Chickens who are killed just the same...), who also cares for Chicken Friends, I might be able to help :-)

 

First of all, when I think of an "egg", its a terribly disgusting thing!  I mean, have you seen how a Hen lays her eggs?  Its not pretty.  Its a birds version of the Menstrual cycle, and it presumably hurts as much as a woman giving birth.  About 30 minutes to an hour before they lay an egg, my Hen Friends will make an "aaaaarrrrrcc aaaaarrrrrcc aaaaarrrrrcc" kind of cry, as their tails vibrate, they're going into contractions, to start the process.  They then look about for their nest to lay the eggs, they like to be left alone.  I dont stay with them as they lay eggs.  They will sit for another 30 minutes or so to actually lay their egg, they fluff themselves up, and often try and pull straw over their bodies, as a means of camouflage.  Two or three bits of yellow straw on a black Hen make not a disguise, but hey, at least she tried! :-)

Its a terribly painful act for a Hen, but its how their bodies work.  Even if we *could* somehow ignore exactly what an egg is, where it comes from, how its made, I dont think we *should* eat them, I'd rather not even touch their eggs to be honest!

 

Animal Sanctuaries (such as Peaceful Prairie http://www.peacefulprairie.org/ )give the birds their eggs, they break them for them to enjoy themselves.  Obviously no process is 100% efficient, it takes more to produce an egg than they will regain from eating the egg, however its better than nothing.

Here is a video of my Chicken Friends enjoying an egg of theirs:

http://bit.ly/chickensenjoyingeggs

 

With Sheep, hmm, perhaps its a little like when we have our own hair cut?  Do we feel the need to keep our own hair?  Of course we do!  Why, I have a carpet woven from my own long curly dark hair that everyone complements upon sight!  JK

I suppose we could "shear" any Sheep we care for, if actually needed due to climate (we bred Sheep to not only have such thick wool, but also, perhaps as a side effect to be unable to shed it like other animals) and then... bury it?  Give it to the sheep to sleep on?  I have no idea!  I dont think we should use it ourselves or sell it though.  That keeps the whole "Animals are things who *produce for us*" meme chugging along.

I actually rather like the idea of wild Bees living in my backyard, assuming they are no threat to me or my Chicken Friends!  I quite like all insects, and Bees make the flowers bloom.  If someone were to already have Bees, I think it would be best to let them do their thing, and not get involved.  Whatever they make is theirs alone, just as how we probably wouldnt tolerate it if some talking cartoon bear kept making off with our "pic-a-nick" basket :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_Bear

 

Honey is rather disgustingly made too, as with seemingly all "animal products"!  Would we want to drink another adults breast milk?  Why would we want to drink an adult *nonhumans* breast milk?  Why would we want to eat their eggs, or their honey?

 

Best wishes Sam, have a lovely Twenty Eleven!

 

Jordan Wyatt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sam Hillyer]

And would I be right in saying that if you used your sheeps wool you would come under criticism from vegans if you used the label vegan.

 

I believe that is fair. We may not need eggs, but the same can be said with a lot of things.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hello

 

My answer is very extensive because not only do I'll just state my point of view, which could be fulfilled in a nutshell with this statement, "the utopia of welfarist explotation would operate to minimize the suffering, but welfarist explotation is welfarist explotation  regardless this holding at household level or industry level "

But I think first I should make a statement because I think so, and because it can not depend on the intention of the humans who "have" the chickens

 

 I think it is a mental trap.  Usually we are "born" speciesist and inculcate a worldview speciesist. So, just watching the eggs as a byproduct. As it turns out we were taught to eat, it seems obvious that an egg is a food.
Cat feces do not see them as food, even a dog, generally, love. Do not see them as sub-products. We see them as ... How do we see? Can not say. What I do know is that we do not consider food, or products or by-products.
 Turning someone into something is one of the main mechanisms of speciesism.Intuitively reject the use of a horse as vehicle, even though someone could argue that the horse enjoys doing.
But with the hen and her eggs will not happen to us. Mental mechanism is strange here.

However, even ignoring this, normally we look at the ethics of the actions according to the danger inherent in a society where it was allowed.
We can not avoid dealing with the products, "something" as resources. In fact, if someone makes mental exercise, imagine if rescuing humans eating chicken and eggs is sure to have gone human imagining that rescue hens to provide eggs, and also rescued many chickens and eggs you want. That is the engine of animal exploitation. Animal exploitation exists because some people see animals, or debris such as resources.
There would come a point where the hens would stop laying eggs. But still live what happens then? "They leave those human eating the eggs of chickens?
I do not see how this can succeed based on subjectivity, on the motivation of those who use them.

We can not avoid dealing with resources in how to maximize or minimize. We have a mental inertia force us to do so. It's like living with dogs to feel safe.
The relationship between humans and nonhumans, on an ethical level, there is bidirectional. Do not have to give something to them and them to us. That only works between humans because humans start from the same situation, a situation where our interests are respected (usually).
When you say "it's just that I eat chicken eggs, the end of the day I give to eat and give you a chance to be happy" is making a mistake in approach.
The reality is that we do not give a chance to be happy, if we fulfill our ethical obligation, our ethical imperative to fight for a world where everyone is respected. All that effort, what you get is that this chicken is in an initial situation like ours. With their interests respected.
Then she, if you have time, will link with other chickens or other animals in general, and the way life will treat you more or less happy.

The hens lay eggs. The hens, in turn, shit. In turn, loose feathers ... Is it ethical to use any of this?
What is wrong of speciesism? Does the use, consider resources other animals? Or the way as we treat them?

When we assess the ethical to use ethical criteria. We can not customize the ethics as it suits us. For example is it ethical to use the chickens for eggs?
What determines whether we are using someone? "What determines how we treat the individual to whom do we use? Or what determines the fact of establishing an interaction that we get something from someone, we give or withhold consent?

Needless to eat eggs. We do not need. Using a person under the perspective of minimizing their suffering is the ideal welfarist.

I, for example, I live with chickens. The eggs were removed and we have also a rooster. Normally we give it to dogs. Sometimes we give them (the clear not only the shell). Sometimes even the biting themselves and eat. Sometimes it is the dogs who slip and eat.
Could take the eggs and eat them myself. To them I would not care.

But ethics is not based on whether what I particularly do harm or not. Ethics must be based on what would happen if others do what they do me in if that would cause harm to other individuals.
If ethics were based on motivation, establish conditional rules. For example, would be unethical to hit someone if that person was willing to be beat. Depend on the motivations of individuals. But the motivations of the acts are subjective, hides behind the mind, and we can never know the motivations of other individuals. Ethics must be based on the consequences.
If we do something, we must allow others to do so.
If I decide to use chicken, then I must allow others to do so.
Using the pretext of suffering is at least eligible for welfarism. The decisions we make to us and take us away from the ethics that we pursue. I can hardly understand a welfarist exceptions abolitionism.

Ethics is a set of function criteria, when applied, make the society more just, to avoid prejudicing the interests of others whenever possible.
Establish a rule that allows the use gives rise to apply these principles in any kind of exploitation.

Ethics, as I said, depends not only on the motivation of our action. Does not depend on the specific consequences of our actions. Ethics must be a rule that guides all individuals and we can not shield us in the pure and good reasons to make exceptions.
We can not defend specific principles (abolition of any use) and make exceptions. It is not honest, it is unethical.
It is not only unfair speciesism. The anti-speciesism does not imply that individuals can use while not falling into speciesism. The anti-speciesism, what it does is extend the ethic of not harming other individuals.
And besides, as it is to establish an ethical criterion, you must have some principles that avoid the situation that harms other individuals.
Ethics means giving up some interests dispensable to prevent harm to other individuals. Thus, ethics can not allow something that sentence, when the motivation is different. And so is unethical to harm other individuals as it is doing something that is unfair.
In short, ethical standards must be respected if they are fair. We strive to build an ethic that everyone should respect and ensure the abolition of speciesism and the abolition of the use of any individual. Do not think that the movement is only in that the farms cease to exist. Exploitation "at home" is also unfair. The ideal welfarism, even when it can be argued that no harm to individuals exploited, is unfair. And, as I said, it is industrial, but it is also domestically.

We certainly fit, eat live chickens and their eggs have a farm household is welfarist.
We do not fight alone against the consequences, if we strive to eliminate mechanisms that allow such consequences. Our mind makes us feel different operating domestically that industrial exploitation does not imply that the mechanism is different.
The "ideal welfarism" is the same regardless of how many individuals have, regardless of whether they are in a country house or a farm of 2000 hectares.

[Sam Hillyer]

Thank you very much for your reply Jordan. I love your style, satire is one of my favourite things, and I think it makes your argument very powerful. I don't know if it's the right choice of words, but it's light-hearted. A lot of reading on this topic can be very doom and gloom, and depress people enough to not want to change, but I feel I could use your response here to convince most confused people.

I especially liked hearing about your lovely carpet, haha!

 

You are right though, it is a bit gross, and your perspective is quite logical. 

I had chickens at one point, and to hear them laying was painful in itself, I had to go away because I could not ignore it.

 

Once again, your way of dealing with issues and conveying them to others is brilliant. Thank you

[Jordan Wyatt]

ack, darn auto"correct", I really did mean compliment, as in praise, not complement as in "the carpet of human hair goes with anyone, regardless of what colour clothing they wear" :-)

[Sam Hillyer]

Eduardo, 

Thank you for your detailed reply. You have made me think a lot longer and a lot deeper about ethics, and what is really meant by ethics and what they stand for, than I ever have done. I think you are right in the belief that by using a chickens egg, you are associating her as providing something for you. Which goes to say that she is there for you, and for you to use. I understand that this is not how you would treat your equal. 

 

Would you say it is wrong to ride upon a horse? or even, to go further, that it is wrong to have a dog for company? Maybe I am asking a stupid question here, but could it not be argued that companionship is a resource as well, and the dog is seen as a means to an end. I would really like to know what peoples thoughts are here. It is not uncommon for people to get a dog because they can not have a child, or to help them deal with a break-up and new found loneliness or even to fill the void left by another dog.

 

I agree with what you have to say about chickens now though, because after all you could have a slave, and treat them with kindness, love and generoisty, but you are still using them, and endorsing the use of slaves by others.

 

Thank you Eduardo

[Nick Dalzell]

i see no difference in companionship with any animal than any person. do we have wives or husbands for our 'use?' the line on what is right and what is use has to be drawn somewhere. none of  the animals i consider family are in any way exploited. to suggest they are is suggesting that a human's offspring are also exploited

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Sam. Thanks for posting this, and thank you to all who have replied to it.

You said this in the main chat. I think it's worth repeating here

"Thank you Eduardo, I found what you had to say very challenging, it certainly has changed how i've been thinking"

Thank you Sam, I agree.

 

I agree in general with the comments made here, and particularly with Eduardo Terrer's ethical antispeciesist perspective, highlighting that we must challenge our own speciesism, and strive for a world where no-one is deliberately exploited by whatever method, in whatever circumstance, because of the species they happen to be a member of.

It's good if we can provide sanctuary to some of those who have been lucky enough not to have been killed by their former slave-owners, but we must not make the mistake of thinking that there could be a morally acceptable way of using them. We can enjoy their company but we must not mistake their eggs for something that could belong to us. To take their eggs would be stealing, as it is to take anyone's products from them, e.g. taking honey which belongs to the bees who made it.

One of the problems with the idea of chickens and eggs is in terms of how they came to be with us in the first place. If someone purchases a chick from a supplier for the purpose of using her eggs, then there will have been a male chick who had been murdered when he was just a few days old. These baby male chicks are murdered by various methods, including being gassed or by being thrown into shredding machines whilst alive and fully conscious. But even if they had been painlessy euthanised (which they never are) then it still would be morally indefensible to kill them. They have as much right to their life and liberty as anyone has. It's important that we do not forget that for every female chick who is allowed to survive, someone was murdered when they were a baby.

Another question you ask is about the problems with keeping bees for their honey. Here is a great website which explains why honey is not vegan. http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm.

Thankyou

 

Greetings

[Sam Hillyer]

Haha Nick, I did realise I was being quite out there and stupid when I asked that question, and I really was hoping that nobody actually did see seeking out companionship as selfish exploitation. What would life be if it could not be shared with humans and nonhumans alike?

 

Kate, I really am thankful for how well Eduardo articulated his outlook despite the translation. Before reading, I saw nout wrong with eating the eggs of hens in your care etc but I've had it highlighted now, that regardless of whether the eggs came from a factory farm or not, it's the underlying ethics of whether the egg is something "produced" by the hen for us to take. This is crystal clear to me now, and certainly something I will take back to my class next time morality comes up.

 

 

[Lisa V]

Nick,

 

It's not quite that simple. When we take away a chicken's eggs every day, the chicken will keep laying more and more eggs (that's one of the reasons they lay as many as 300 eggs each year ...). If we let the eggs stay there with the chicken, the chicken will "brood," meaning they start sitting on and caring for the eggs and stop laying any more. No chicken, not even a modern one, will continue laying eggs once they have enough eggs to take care of. So, it's actually a good thing for the physical health of the chicken to stop laying eggs for a while and to take care of those eggs, even if they're infertile. If left with their eggs, a chicken will only lay a couple dozen, at most, each year.

 

If the eggs are left for the chicken, then there are none for anyone to eat.

 

However, if it works out for some reason that a chicken lays enough eggs to brood and also have extra, then I don't see why, under that fairly unusual circumstance, to eat an egg. Though I accidentally ate something with egg whites in it a couple years ago and got really sick from it, so I don't know if any vegan would even want to eat an egg. But, if veganism is a moral position and not just a diet, then I don't see why eating an egg under those circumstances would be non-vegan.

[Lisa V]

Oh, and honeybees ... that's a thornier issue for me. I'm not quite convinced of the "must not eat honey to be vegan" part ... and here's why ...

 

In some ways, I don't see the moral difference between eating honey from local bees, who I know are kept in an ethical and well run way, and buying vegetables from growers who use pesticides (organic or otherwise). (I don't use pesticides in my own garden.) Actually, it would seem the honey is less harmful. Why is it that one group of insects is protected and another exterminated?

 

OTOH, my own moral striving is to not take things that don't belong to me. Surely, the honey rightfully belongs to the bees and to benefit from their labor by taking their honey is, to me, not vegan.