Deontology is the ethical basis for veganism. If you’re lying to your meat-preferring friends to trick them into eating plant-based alternatives then you’re using your friends in an attempt to further your own aims; you’re using other people as a means to an end. That’s not a mildly bad thing, that’s a violation of one of the ethical principles (prohibition on exploitation) of veganism.
Now I don’t support reacting with violence to something like that but I do believe it’s fully justified to decline to dine with a friend/relative in future who does that.
among deontologists, it’s controversial. Kant, himself, was not a vegan. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, which is why I asked for evidence.
Deontology is the ethical basis for veganism. If you’re lying to your meat-preferring friends to trick them into eating plant-based alternatives then you’re using your friends in an attempt to further your own aims; you’re using other people as a means to an end. That’s not a mildly bad thing, that’s a violation of one of the ethical principles (prohibition on exploitation) of veganism.
Now I don’t support reacting with violence to something like that but I do believe it’s fully justified to decline to dine with a friend/relative in future who does that.
can you support this?
You might want to read up on deontology, then you’d see that my statement is obvious, not controversial.
this is hand waiving, not evidence
among deontologists, it’s controversial. Kant, himself, was not a vegan. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, which is why I asked for evidence.