Stentor at Debitage wrote:
“Setting aside health concerns and second-order effects (e.g. that eating roadkill implicitly endorses eating all meat), there’s nothing un-vegan about eating roadkill. Refusing to eat it won’t bring the roadkilled animal back to life, nor will it reduce the likelihood of future animals being hit by cars. Because veganism is fundamentally about keeping suffering out of animals, not about keeping animals out of our bellies.”
What do you think?
I’m not asking if you’d eat roadkill. I would NEVER eat roadkill. (OK, well maybe I were completely starving and there was nothing else to eat at all, but probably not even then.) There are obviously many problems with eating roadkill: health, convenience, image… Not to mention the fact that roadkill is still human-caused and that being killed by an automobile, though likely unintentional, is still not really a “natural” death.
But I’m asking if Stentor has accurately described a basic tenant of veganism. Is his description here on the right track?
I know we don’t all completely agree on everything, but isn’t he right that veganism is more about refraining from unnecessarily harming animals than about actual consumption of animal products? Doesn’t his roadkill example help clarify veganism just a bit? Or… is it just confusing?