2024-09-02
This first entry will be essentially a draft, and I will try to write up in a more structured way later. Essentially, it is an attempt to somewhat codify and put into a structured form the diet I adopt or wish to adopt, which is essentially a few outliers with an essentially vegan core.
Provenance veganism is a form of almost-veganism, or rather, is a variation on veganism, with an altogether different moral fundament. Whereas veganism is based on the idea that abuse to animals (as a category specifically) is immoral, whence animal products as a category should be avoided, I would note that this is a non-sequitur: neither are animal products bound to animal suffering nor is avoidance of meat a perfect solution to this. I wish to state at the outset that provenance-veganism also is not a perfect solution, though I would put forward that it is better than traditional veganism.
I eat eggs and do not believe it to overly immoral, given that the source of the eggs is chickens that are treated well. I would not eat store-bought eggs even if free range from a moral perspective.
I believe it would be moral to eat snails, given their lack of a nervous system, the lack of environmental damage, etc.
I would consider eating roadkill to be acceptable.
Likewise, I consider this acceptable to eat iff the alternative is that it will be wasted. Feeding to the foxes is not considered wastage.
What is the criterion of provenance veganism? With a focus on the consumption of wasted animal biproducts by others, I would say that it could be boiled down to, *I will eat animal products, but will not pay to support the industry*, where here *industry* is specifically that industry of factory farming or immoral practises of rearing.
That said, whilst I am more or less settled that eggs do not fall under this, and as such are acceptable to eat if produced properly (i.e. actually free range hens, no killing of males or at a premature age, etc. - then again, I actually do question the immorality of killing of the young at such an early age, as it is instant and likely causes no real pain save for to the mother (which is a big concern still, and the reason not to eat dairy); bivalves to buy would be generally acceptable owing to their lower consciousness I presume, and the lessened environmental impact likely as well; but I would need to think it through properly... what of fish, for instance, who also have a lower capacity than the sentient animals? What of actually pastured beef (again, I'm under no pretenses that the cheap stuff bought in Aldis labelled "pastured" actually is, but I mean the genuine article, i.e. from a farmer's market)?
I would say that, depending on the method of slaughter, things of that nature actually *are* acceptable if to a limited degree. The thing is, I don't believe we should be ruling out all animal meat as a food source, nor do I believe in animal liberation.
I think really, as a general rule, people should still be able to eat meat, or animal products, but in more sparing quantities.