Animals

As another example: I had a conversation two days ago with a woman who relayed an anecdote about her friend who became noticeably angry, to the point of confrontational, when birds were harmed by humans. A childhood experience(s) apparently engendered this fondness for birds. I inferred from this that this individual did not consume chickens. My inference was wrong. The individual telling me this story seemed quite astonished that I would assume this from his anger over the the suffering experienced by birds, as though my assumption were completely without merit: ducks are beautiful, chickens are "food." We then had a conversation in which I discussed Francione's argument about "moral schizophrenia."

It never ceases to amaze me when people say "I don't want to think about animals suffering for us to eat them" but yet still go through the drive-thu for their 99-cent burgers. 

I've been around enough pigs to know that they are amazing creatures. 

My mother once told me that she's not surprised I am vegan: apparently smart people know enough to refrain from eating other smart people

/>

I love the excerpt about cognitive dissonance! I just don't understand how William, who wrote that, can be so clearly aware of the contradiction, and yet not in any way try to change-- to allign his actions with his values. Most people are not even aware that their world is filled with dissonance, and it makes sense to me that those people wouldn't see reason to change. But those who are aware, and write it off as something humans will never be able to change--that is weakness in my eyes. As ghandi said, be the change you want to see in the world.

Also, I second Lisa... I love this blog!!

Love the post.

Great post. It really blows my mind that so many just don't care. I do think many are willing to admit factory farms are deplorable, but I guess they just can't make that connection, or don't care, as shown in the final quote of the article.

I personally think that this comment is based on a fallacious premise: by asking rhetorically if "pigs (and cows and chickens) are truly that different from domestic cats and dogs in any way except how we think of and treat them" it ignores that it is precisely the way in which we think and act what makes up culture, and ours was built upon agriculture and the domestication of animals, both for nurturing and  as company and labor. Originally there were none of the horrors of modern-day meat and dairy industry, where the moral strife resides. But to pet a dog while munching a 2lb rib eye steak is not a cognitive dissonance, unless being sons of our context is. The problem, industrial meat and dairy, belongs to a broader discussion involving the very nature of the system in which we reproduce...

I once had a friend who refused to acknowledge that she ate pigs but loved cats because society told her to. She insisted it was her own decision, not at all swayed by societal norms. LOL.

OK guys, lets just get a couple of things straight. The cognitive dissonance involved here is not about eating meat per se. It's about the way that meat was raised. There is nothing incoherent itself about loving a dog but also eating meat. Apart from anything else, what are you going to feed the dog? I think we vegetarians and vegans need to make it clear that animal rights are not absolute, certainly not in comparison (for example) with the rights of the people in the world who belong to animal-raising cultures like many of the First Nations in Canada or the Sami in Finland. What you'll notice is that these cultures have a respect for animals that goes way beyond what you generally find in the Europe or the US. So it's not about the meat, it's about how it got to your plate. (I'm still not eating it, though).

Hey Conor, I think you've really gone to the heart of the matter.  I have a friend who was once vegan in college, but after her father died & she inherited his farm, she learned to raise the animals from birth to death.  She does her own slaughtering, which scares me a little!  But, I think the respect part is a major aspect of the whole thing.  If you look at what the HSUS does, it's not looking to abolish the "meat industry" but to make it more tolerable for animals.

Personally, I choose not to even be a part of the system whatsoever, just doing what I can to support the groups that do the investigating, lobbying and legwork. 

Quote:

"personally think that this comment is based on a fallacious premise: by asking rhetorically if "pigs (and cows and chickens) are truly that different from domestic cats and dogs in any way except how we think of and treat them" it ignores that it is precisely the way in which we think and act what makes up culture, and ours was built upon agriculture and the domestication of animals, both for nurturing and  as company and labor."

The same argument, verbatim, was used to defend the institution of slavery, Jaun Calavera. One could suggest cognitive dissonance in this instance as well: Being "sons of their context," the Founders argued that "All men are created equal..." while profiting from making some men the property of another. One can accept the context of an ethical paradigm while still levelling charges against that same paradigm.

The core of this post, in my opinion, is an attempt to get at our bifurcated reasoning as it concerns similar beings: We love X, while we eat Y because we have been conditioned to enjoy the taste of Y's flesh and thus we arbitrarily deny Y's claims (claims similar in nature to Y's). This occurs while there is no empirical or logical distinction between X and Y. As Gary Francione argues, this is a display of our "moral schizophrenia."

Connor is correct, up to a point. As I argued above, we can criticize anther's premise, regardless of the context. Criticism need not imply an absence of understanding; but if our ethical premises are sound, they ought to apply in different contexts. This notion of "respect," however, is ethically confused. How, I wonder, can you "respect" another if you exploit them as property - and thus ignore their most fundamental interests - for the most trivial ends imaginable (e.g., "I like the taste of dairy)? We ought to abolish the "meat industry" because on our own premises about unnecessary suffering and ethical impartiality, justice demands that we do so.

Here's an essay about "unnecessary suffering", for example:

http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/09/the-issue-of-unnecessary-suffe.html

"This notion of "respect," however, is ethically confused. How, I wonder, can you "respect" another if you exploit them as property"

I realize that I used the "respect" argument in my post!!  Doesn't make me look like a good vegan.  Well, I can only say that I hope people will come around and one by one also remove themselves from the cycle that is the modern food industry.

A fair point about respect -- I've been reading Michelle Paver's 'Chronicles of Ancient Darkness' series of novels with my kids and I think I've got a bit carried away by her picture of a paleolithic teenager thanking each animal that he has hunted for giving up its life to sustain him and using every last part of the animal for some useful purpose (don't get me wrong though -- they're great stories).

I suppose the real question is whether you can respect something while at the same time killing and eating it. This is where I think we need to get away from thinking about respect for individual creatures and start thinking about respect for natural systems. Predation is part of the Earth's ecosystem, and for that reason I would find it hard to argue that killing animals for food is inherently wrong in the same way that killing people (for whatever reason) is inherently wrong. But respecting the ecosystem is a different matter, and we undoubtedly all agree that industrial farming is clearly a long way over the boundary there.

One of the reasons this debate is so important is the need to have a clear message to direct at meat-eaters. At the moment I think we're making it too hard to be a vegetarian because vegetarianism is tied in the public imagination to strong views about animal rights that meat-eaters take as personal criticism of their lives. This is getting in the way of the argument against industrial farming and other important arguments for eating less or no meat, like the CO2 emissions argument (Emily Gertz has some great stuff about this over on the Stop Global Warming cause).

I'm not saying that animal rights are unimportant in all of this, but I am saying that we have to be careful how we use those arguments.

"Predation is part of the Earth's ecosystem, and for that reason I would find it hard to argue that killing animals for food is inherently wrong in the same way that killing people (for whatever reason) is inherently wrong."

What makes it inherently wrong for a person to kill a person for food? In fact, what makes anything inherently "wrong?"

"This is where I think we need to get away from thinking about respect for individual creatures and start thinking about respect for natural systems."

YES!  Ok, now I'm feeling better - like you were able to articulate my thoughts better. 

We've really moved away from understanding that the natural world is actually a part of our human existence.  Humans, in general, tend to see themselves above the natural world.  We need to return to seeing ourselves as part of it again.  Industrial farming is raping our land, enslaving our animals and in many way enslaving our race.  We're taught that we "need" meat, but look at the obesity rate in this country!  I can't tell you how many times I've been told that I'll get sick because I'm not eating meat.  HA!  I'm the healthiest one of the bunch.  And in all my years in many forms of Veg*nism, I've still remained healthier than my meat-eating friends & family.

"In fact, what makes anything inherently "wrong?""  Well, I'm not one to bring up religion, but most religions have laws against killing people (including oneself).  ;)

We're collapsing different concepts here. One, "predation": This notion that to survive, life must be distinguished; therefore, questions of ethics ought to be replaced due to natural necessity. And two, a question of suffering and interests, which, I believe, underlies ethical veganism and the core of this post: Because it is indisputable that we can survive without flesh, the question of "predation," which implies, by definition, some suffering, is erroneous. Plant matter does not suffer. Therefore, while life must end for us to survive, suffering (and sentience, which suggests "interests") need not enter into the calculation. (Aside from the indirect suffering of some nonhumans during cultivation; however, as it is "indirect," like other ethical premises we hold that surround the issue of "intent", this is a question for another day.)

We ought to challenge meat-eaters and therein we criticize the ethical paradigm of animals-as-property that justifies factory farming, veal, the fur industry, etc., because to do so is both ethically consistent and the only real means available. We exist in a moral climate, therefore, we are sensitive to critique. However, we must challenge that climate to change it. Existing on the periphery where a mother pig is given a larger cage in which to exist while our companion animals are treated better than children doesn't get to the core of the problem, it merely justifies it: "Look," they say in response to us, "we have changed X and Y and therefore we are now acting ethically." That is a recipe for continuation (however, the baby boy cows (i.e., "veal") get to live in a smaller confined space), not substantive change.  

Lisa, I'm glad to find someone on the same wavelength. Alex, of course you're right that we can survive without eating meat, but what I think we have to ask is whether we have any right to demand of other people that they do this; whether we can say that this is one of those moral principles that demands universal adherence. On the other hand I think we can definitely claim that industrial meat farming is absolutely wrong, and we can push that argument a really long way.

So I think what I think is that we've got to get real with the politics of this. Aside from the fact that I don't myself think that killing an animal for food is necessarily wrong in all circumstances, the main thing we need to do is get more people to eat less meat. And we're less likely to pull people in if we don't appear to be condemning as very wrong something that for most people is utterly banal.

Blake, you're asking a very fundamental question there. Morality needs a source. It doesn't just come from nowhere. I'm not too impressed with revealed (religious) morality, where things are right or wrong because some god or other says they are. I'm much more interested in dialogical concepts of morality, where moral precepts are recognised as being the outcome of open discussion and deliberation. So the things that are inherently wrong are those things that we agree are inherently wrong -- with the proviso that everyone has the possibility of participating freeling in the deliberation. This is a difficult thing to put into practice i know, but as a procedural definition of morality it takes some beating.

whoops -- in paragraph 2 line 4 there shouldn't be that 'don't' at the end of the line.

"It doesn't just come from nowhere."

Thanks for your replies, Lisa and Conor. I was hinting at religion. For the record, I am a Christian (and a creationist). Conor, the concepts you describe above seem more suited as legal concepts than as moral concepts. I don't think that "Right" and "Wrong" change. Under the above circumstances, that is, morality determined by open discussion, right and wrong could change. Thus we enter the debate of absolute morality vs. postmodernism. This is surely something we didn't intend to get into in the comments of an animal rights article.

Suffice it to say, however, that there are parts of your arguments about the meat production system that I could agree with. After all, to Christians, humans have dominion over the animals, the land, etc., but we are required to be good stewards.

Thanks for considering my comments.

Thankfully, it appears that we're all working together here to build a much more articulate argument for veg*nism.  I just wish that omnivores would engage in this sort of conversation with any of us without judgement or aggression.

Does eating meat make people more aggressive?  I'm actually asking, I'm not trying to be sarcastic!!

This notion of "Do we have the right to ask someone to not eat meat" is erroneous, unless one would equally extend that argument to those who would ask another not to be a racist, for example. Implied in this question is ethical subjectivity, which is a reasonable argument if it is taken to its logical conclusion: Racism, sexism, etc. are subjectively wrong and therefore ought to be considered within context. As such, should I be able to ask a man who comes from a long-line of patriarchs to avoid sexism if his sexism manifests itself in making a woman suffer? If you see a difference between sexism and speciesism, please define a principle that separates the two. 

Conor, I would agree that eating meat in some circumstances isn't necessarily wrong: Sustenance hunting, for example, where other alternatives do not exist, shouldn't be challenged as unethical; as would situations of "life and death." However, I would equally extend this argument to killing human animals for food: If I am forced into such a situation by circumstance (e.g., deserted island where no other sources are available)  and I were to kill a human animal for food, to be labeled as unethical would be erroneous - the height of irrationality. However Conor your argument seems to extend beyond these contexts, which isn't valid: We have a choice in the Western world, our situation is not one of the "burning house" where it's you or me, and therefore, you need to defend making the choice to force another being to suffer for your gastronomical satisfaction (when numerous other sources exist) that does not rely on demonstrable arbitrariness or mere prejudice. Such a defense does not exist.

Focusing on factory farming misses the core of the problem, which in turn justifies factory farming: Speciesism.     

I don't think we need to quibble with morality's grounds, or objectivity versus subjectivity. We can instead ask: What premises do we strongly hold and what ethical axioms are derived from them? "Animal rights" or non-oppression ought to be one such axiom: Suffering is intrinsically evil, therefore, all suffering ought to count in our moral deliberations. Intellectual capacity and reasoning leaves out the mentally challenged and human infants (and includes many nonhuman animals), and prejudice against members of another species justifies, logically, racism and sexism. We must have the courage to be logically and ethically consistent. 

Here's an essay about speciesism:

http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/04/an-example-of-speciesism.html
/>

Here's the link:

http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/04/an-example-of-speciesism.html
/>

Alex, I read the essay about speciesism that you linked to and I was deeply unimpressed. You can't treat people who believe that the life of an animal -- oh, alright, a nonhuman animal -- is of less value than the life of a human in the same way as racists and sexists. The palpable contempt in that essay for 'the speciesist' was really quite offensive. If you came across a farmer who didn't give a f**k about the fact that his livestock were raised and slaughtered in appalling conditions and was interested only in how much he could sell them for when they were dead then you would be entitled to that kind of outrage, but this was someone who is likely to be sympathetic to your arguments and is basically on the same side as you -- like me. I realise it may seem to you that I'm asking you to compromise on a principle that doesn't admit of any compromise, but you need to recognise that comparing what you call speciesism to racism and sexism is not comparing like with like. When women and people from ethnic minorities demand equality what they are saying is "we are suffering and we demand that it stop". What they are not saying is "we demand that you live like us because we cause less suffering  to animals than you". The political message is different, and much more difficult to swallow.

We need to make it easier for people to eat less meat, not more difficult.

What the anti-sexist demands is "Women have interests that ought to be counted because their isn't a rational or ethical reason not to." What the anti-speciesist demands is "Nonhuman animals have interests that ought to be counted because their isn't a rational or ethical reason not to." The capacity to suffer is necessary for there to exist interests. As such, you seem confused about my insistence on suffering: It's not "less suffering" that blacks call for; it is the protection of their interests (they only have interests because they are sentient (i.e., a capacity to suffer and experience). Therefore, the logic of the sexist - "Because women belong to a different group than me, their interests ought not count" - is the same as the logic of the specieist - "Regardless of other similarities, because nonhuman animals belong to another group their interests ought not count, no matter how fundamental (e.g., not being in pain) or how trivial our interests are that trump theirs (e.g., "I like the taste of flesh"). I never claimed that it is "easy to swallow." we exist in an ethical climate that assumes the validity of speciesism; however, this is an assumption, not strong reasoning. My argument then, is that we ought to challenge that assumption to see if it holds up. It doesn't, unless we accept the  validity of the position of the most blatant racists. Therefore, your argument against me is baseless: I don't "treat them as racists," I argue that their assumptions about nonhuman animals are similar to the racists, and if we reject those assumptions about blacks or women, we ought to, logically, reject those assumptions about animals.

P.S., I say nonhuman animals for effect: We are great apes - animals - therefore, I try to challenge this dichotomy we as a species assume exists between "us" and "all of them." As such, "nonhuman animals" is entirely valid (even if we don't like to believe it).

Here's the best essay on speciesism to date:

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm
/>

I'm reading & digesting all that's being said, though I don't think I'm actually contributing!  I think our status as superior animals balances on how we treat those who are weaker than us.  Animals absolutely have no voice.  I am a strong feminist, but I can speak for myself.  Want to know about my experiences in a male-dominated profession?  You can ask me & I can answer.  But animals & children or handicapped or whatever "lesser" groups we talk about, don't have the same skills or podiums from which to shout. 

In the end, I feel that our ability to empathize sets us apart.  And that means that many other animals can fall into this category as well. 

Alex, sorry about the nonhuman animal thing -- you're right to use and defend that terminology of course.

Let me try and come at this from a different direction. We can presumably agree that we have the same right to inhabit the planet as other species. We have the right to live our lives and to behave in the way that we have evolved to behave. Now I don't want to get all state-of-nature essentialist here, but humans, like most of the other great apes, are naturally omnivorous. We can survive on a meat-free diet, but for most of history and in most cultures we have not done so. Eating meat is deeply embedded in almost every traditional culture.

It seems to me, then, that meat-eating is not an aberration in the way that sexism and racism are aberrations. Nonhuman animals have different sex roles, but we would never say that they are sexist because they have no choice about their behaviour. Male lions are not lazy and female lions are not oppressed. Animals also engage in attacks on members of the same or similar species, not for food but seeking to extend their territory or whatever. But we would never say that they are speciesist or subspeciesist. None of these categories make sense in the (nonhuman) animal context.

We, of course, have a choice about how we live. But the choice of meat or not-meat is a categorically different one to oppress or not-oppress.

I'll leave that with you while I go and look at the Singer piece. It may be a while before I get a chance to join in again as I'm going away for a few days, but I'm not ducking out. It's cool to be in this discussion. I've been a vegetarian for twenty years and I'm not going to change now, but I think I still need to work out exactly why and what it all means philosophically.

I'd like to quote an earlier response from Connor: "The cognitive dissonance involved here is not about eating meat per se. It's about the way that meat was raised" which is my point as well. So let's also discuss how veggies are grown. Thousands of acres of rainforest and cloud forest are being destroyed in order to produce veggies, thus killing many species who live in those fragile ecosystems, contributing to climate change, floods, etc. Also, the labour that that grows those veggies is often semi-enslaved (no I don't support slavery, Alex, nice low blow attempt). For example, a local producer in my state makes 1 mexican peso or less (10 US cents) for each kilo of coffe beans. Is that any less cruel than massive slaughterhouse cow killing?
We should respect all forms of life because our existence is possible because there are many other forms of life around along with wich we have evolved to be what we are now. Do you spray roaches with insecticide? To me that's worse than eating carcass.
We should eat living beings to survive, plants, animals, insects (here in Oaxaca we eat lots of them), mushrooms, and we even need some bacteriae to stay alive. Why should we treat a plant different thatn we treaty a cow, dog, pig, fish, poisonous mushroom, person, rat, snake, alligator, scorpion, locust...? Because they are different.

I have a friend who hails from Montana.  Every year he goes home to help his dad cut & bale hay.  Last year, he chopped up a baby fawn in the blades as he cut the field.  He said he stopped, got offf the machine & quit.  He was so upset he couldn't function the rest of the day - in fact, leaving the tractor out in the middle of the field for someone else to retrieve. 

There is consequential death of animals involved in growing plant matter, too.  So where do you draw the line?  We HAVE to eat to survive - this is not an option to quit eating - so what can you do?  It's something that people try to "catch" me with :  "So what if you're vegan, animals are still dying to bring you soy products."  My place is to care about the animals, not necessarily about the plants.  Does that make sense?

It makes total sense. On my part, I care for all living beings because i believe that to neglect some is to neglect all. Also, I wasn't talking about minimal collateral damage but massive envirnomental destruction to satisfy market demands for vegetables. Of course there is responsible vegetarianism/veganism as there is responsible carnivorousness. To be a wal mart vegetarian is as awful as being a mcdonald's regular. Please don´t (in case you did) take my first comment personal, but i really think that these issues should be discussed with cool heads and without using the guilt trip card. That's it. (BTW I don't think there would be a wal mart vegetarian among the people responding here...)

Quote:

"It seems to me, then, that meat-eating is not an aberration in the way that sexism and racism are aberrations."

"Aberrations?" Surely your mistaken to assume this Conor. These actions are derived from the principle of "might makes right," which is directly related to physical superiority resulting in the satisfaction of interests: What, I ask you, is more "natural" to our species, given our history, than that?

The lion example is mistaken because they are naturally carnivores: they require flesh to survive. What seems to be implied in your reliance on nonhuman animals is apparently an ethic drawn from a comparison to other animals. This is strange given the selective reasoning involved: We rightfully do not look to nonhuman animals for ethical principles. We defined them with the use of our intellectual capacities and reasoning. Dogs defecate in public; monkeys rape other monkeys; lions commit infanticide: do we use them as examples for what we ought to do? No. We have the capacity to morally reason, and therefore, we ought to.   

Here's a post on selective reasoning Conor:

http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/10/challenging-selective-reasonin.html
/>
Jaun, you have missed the point about comparing speciesism to racism. Please revisit my argument. 

Pointing out the deaths of animals as a result of agribusiness environmental degradation does not go to prove your point; it suggests that alternatives are morally necessary. My argument still holds: Causing a cow to suffer because you like the taste of his flesh isn't ethical. Consider the calculation you suggest: The same piece of land used for crop production or flesh production - in both situations, indirect harm is going to be suffered by animals, however, in the first instance, this indirect harm is the only suffering experienced while in the latter, both direct harm (e.g., the pig killed) and indirect harm are experienced. Therefore, on your own argument, being a vegan is "caring for all living beings."

Further, by definition, anyone who eats meat is multiplying the amount of environmental harm done because we have to create vegetables to funnel through the cow. Added to this, of course, is the harm caused to animals by eating them: We kill animals by farming crops and then we kill more because we like the taste of them. Either way you calculate it, the vegan causes less suffering, which at least suggests some "care for all living beings." Both, however, are irresponsible: The Wal-Mart vegetarian and the omnivore.  

Alex, I might not express myself that well in English and therefore be misunderstood. I agree with you on "Causing a cow to suffer because you like the taste of his flesh isn't ethical"  -I never implied the opposite- as it is to cause a plant to suffer, or a third world country peasant. It appears that the satisfaction of our everyday needs involves different amounts of suffering, whether it is other animals', other people, or life in general. So yes, there is an ethical limit to what we should eat and how we should get it, having minimal possible sufferance as the standard. It is not very ethical to eat veggies that have traveled 20,000 miles just because they wont grow around one's area; vegetarianism/veganism isn't automatically ethical.
I don't get the difference between direct and indirect harm. To me, if you slash and burn a number of acres of rain forest, where endemic species live, so you can grow a particular crop, you are killing those animals (driving many species to extinction) and not even feeding one single soul. And also, what about the direct harm suffered by all beings (human, animal, vegetable, bacterial, etc), because of global warming (erosion of land is one of the many man induced factors)? Besides eating, other needs that we have cause suffering, for example child labour employed in Asian sued shops that produce the cheap clothes poor people can afford (and also the ridiculously expensive designer rags), and also there's the need to heat shower water, heat houses in the winter, take planes, buses, etc. Of course it is debatable whether traveling (faster) is a basic need, if showering is, if dressing is...
I return to my first conclusion: the problem is what we produce and how we produce it, materially and symbolically. What we need is not to put a thousand patches, but an entire new paradigm of social (and material) reproduction. The paradigm in which we reproduce now, capitalism, produces all these contradictions. But if I have to put mine it'd be "responsible consumption".
Quoting Peter Singer, "Who can say with confidence that all his or her attitudes and practices are beyond criticism?" Well, not even vegans...

Quote:

"...as it is to cause a plant to suffer."

Plant's don't suffer because they cannot suffer; therefore, they do not have interests. As such, I don't even understand this as a locution: You imply that we have obligations to plants, which doesn't follow. The same holds for bacteria, germs, most bug species, etc. Therefore, this "harm" you speak of is logically confused Jaun. 

If we assume the sentience of plants, for example, erroneously I think, my argument stated above - "Less suffering, overall, occurs if we eat the plants directly" - is valid and hasn't been challenged yet. 

I never implied that vegetarianism/veganism is "automatically ethical" - you're arguing against yourself here. You may be, consciously or not, trying to set up a "straw man" argument for which to attack, an easy task of course, which isn't working because you're avoiding my premises and the conclusions of your own. 

Your argument seems to have some merit Jaun, however, you're not arguing against my premises: The humans exploited for plant production are equally exploited to produce the plants that are then fed to the cows we eat (and travel, processing, etc.), therefore, duel exploitation occurs. So, on your own argument, we should avoid the second stage. Implied in everything you are saying is that we ought to show as much "respect" for living beings (and the earth) as possible, which concludes with veganism and buying local. I don't believe you can avoid this conclusion.   

"Also, I wasn't talking about minimal collateral damage but massive environmental destruction to satisfy market demands for vegetables."

Oh no, and I understand that.  I just wanted to point out that even on the smallest family run farms, there will always be that death.  In many ways, it's more respectful than the large scale operations that are the real issue. 

"BTW I don't think there would be a wal mart vegetarian among the people responding here..."

I'm laughing!  I think this is a great statement!  I have a friend who proclaims how great it is that she buys "only organic" veggies, but sadly she shops at WallyWorld.  I just laugh...

"Both, however, are irresponsible: The Wal-Mart vegetarian and the omnivore. "
AND
"...other needs that we have cause suffering, for example child labour employed in Asian sued shops that produce the cheap clothes poor people can afford"

Again, what should be top of everyone's list why to avoid Walmart.

"vegetarianism/veganism isn't automatically ethical."
You really hit that on the head... there are so many levels of acting upon your ethics that being veg*n isn't enough: thinking green (using the "hip" terminology of the moment) is absolutely necessary.

"Quoting Peter Singer, "Who can say with confidence that all his or her attitudes and practices are beyond criticism?" Well, not even vegans..."
And turning the critical eye onto myself, I would have to agree.

"Plant's don't suffer because they cannot suffer; therefore, they do not have interests."
I hope I didn't give the impression in any of my comments that I think plants compare to animals when it comes to suffering.  Plants don't have brain stems or consciousnesses, they're.... plants.... It is ethical, though, to care about the ways in which these plants are produced and transported to our plates.

Agreed Lisa. However, the ethical question surrounding plants (or the environment) is the direct and indirect suffering of sentient beings; therefore, Jaun's comment about "harm" and plants or bacteria is erroneous.

just to make a non-vegan, meat loving point:  I do not condone chopping up the rainforest and shoving species into extiction, I do not support animal fights, I am not okay with poaching or hunting of any animal, and animal testing sucks. BUT: the cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys sole purpose in life is to be consumed in one way or another.  I think we as a society need to take responsibility for how the animals are kept before they are sent to slaughter, and I know the whole process of slaughtering could be a lot quicker for the animals, too.  But humans are naturally consumers of meat and plants, there is nothing wrong with that fact so don't get pushy. AND FOR THE RECORD: If I was in a tight spot and needed to, I would eat my dog.  And I wouldn't feel bad about it. I'm sure it would be kind of weird and also taste like shit but I'd do it. If I'm higher on the food chain and hungry enough, I'll eat anything.  And I'm not saying that just to annoy people, its just what I would do.  I think the author of this article needs to find some other way to convince people of her cause rather than trying to guilt trip me like I need to feel the same about supper as I do about my pets.  Because I'd eat your fucking cat, no matter how much I love animals.

"However, the ethical question surrounding plants (or the environment) is the direct and indirect suffering of sentient beings;"
Agreed, Alex.

Rachel - I think you just illustrated why people do become vegan - because I would no sooner eat my cat than I would my son.  Regardless of how hungry I was. 

As for animals kept in confinement for food production: a lot of the over production of animals is due to humans "making" so many of these animals.  The herds kept on feed lots compared to those kept on private or family farms, is disproportionate.

But, you do make a great point that it is important to care how they are kept and how they are slaughtered.  Personally, I don't look to convert my family & friends to veg*nism, just to hopefully give them the tools to make informed choices about where they get their food.  If you (or anyone) cares how the meat is produced, then seek out meat that comes from "farms" more in line with your ethics.  It may cost more in money, but it is a step toward living your beliefs.

Rachel, you wrote "BUT: the cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys sole purpose in life is to be consumed in one way or another."

What? According to whom? You? Humans' decision to *assign* a certain purpose to an animal--because that's the purpose that suits humans--does not suddenly make that purpose the being's true purpose.

If a species larger, smarter, and more advanced than humans descended on earth and decided that humans were inferior and tasty and that their sole purpose was to be slaughtered and eaten by this more intelligent, more advanced species, would that be OK with you? And maybe the superior species will decide that Americans make great food, but the people of another nation should be pets, companions to be doted on. Would you suddenly agree that your sole purpose in life is to be the food of this "superior" species?

---To answer Stephanie's questions in chronological order:
1. No, according to my ancestors who found out it was easier to domesticate cows and pigs etc. than bears and snakes and giraffes and parrots etc, etc.
2. It wouldn't be okay with me, just like I'm sure its not okay with the livestock, if you could get their opinion on it.
3. I think there are predators and there are prey. The only reason we aren't something's prey is for two reasons: brain power and opposable thumbs.  Otherwise we'd be food for plenty of animals.  That's why I think its stupid for people to become angry at animals like sharks, lions and bears when they kill or attack humans - its their position in the natural order of things, they can eat us, so if given the chance they will. And I respect that.

Rachel-
I tried to let your threat of eating my cat go, but I can no longer refrain from putting in my 2 cents. 

So, I think Stephanie addressed the flawed logic in your item #1 here:
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/culture_changeable_and_not_an_excuse_for_eating_animals
To quote Elaine Vigneault, "I’m a white American. It’s likely some of my ancestors owned slaves. Does that mean I should own slaves now?" and "My primate ancestors likely flung their poo and had sex in public. Does that mean I should fling my poo and have sex in public?" and "The past is the past for a reason. Live in the present."

And your excuse for why it's ok to eat animals is actually the reason that it is ethically wrong to eat animals. The biggest difference between human animals and other sentient beings is our higher intelligence. People living in this modern world do not need to kill and eat other sentient beings to live. End of story. One of my degrees is in biology, so I don't need your "lessons" in the natural order of things. I think comparing how lions and bears feed themselves "naturally", to how humans come to eat animals is severely misguided. The only thing even close to the natural predator/prey relationship you site that humans engage in is humans hunting animals (and with the aid of a gun or a bow, that is a big stretch), and apparently, you're "not okay with poaching or hunting of any animal."

If you have a problem with "how the animals are kept before they are sent to slaughter," how, exactly, do you suggest we continue to meet the appetite for flesh eater's need for meat? No factory farms mean more environmental degradation (due to increased land for grazing the "natural way") and/or much less meat for you to consume.  (Not to mention the myriad of other environmental diasters associated with eating meat, dairy, and fish.)

The evolved intelligent human animals (vegans) solution is simply to go vegan. And that, I respect.

Any one person can make radical changes to their diet and lifestyle to remove themselves from direct moral culpability for the meat processing industry. There are practical limitations to how that scales, however. We have to recognize the real physical and social limitations involved.

As a species, we have thousands of years of education, culture and practice invested in being the top of the food chain. While that won't go away over night, we can take steps in that direction. Stop teaching our children that "Meat and Dairy" is an daily educational requrement, for example.

Ameliorating the conditions under which food animals are kept is not just a salve for the conscience. If it raises the cost of meat then it makes alternatives more attractive.

These are stepping stones, small things, but this is the way that lasting social change is accomplished.

"Stop teaching our children that "Meat and Dairy" is an daily educational requirement, for example."

THANK YOU!  We're raising our son as a lacto-vegetarian.  There are many reasons why we have decided to leave dairy in his diet which I won't get into here, but I cannot tell you how much resistance we get from family (especially) concerning this choice!  I've been told that my son will be sick, feeble, frail, short, emaciated, have bad eye sight, break his bones, etc. etc., and yet from his pediatrician I hear nothing but praise for our choices AND simple advice that he should take a multi-vitamin daily just to be "safe."  Ok, this is good news!

In fact, my son is very rarely sick, he seems to have a very strong immune system, his height falls in the 75th percentile of kids his age and his weight is at 50th percentile.  He's strong, active, healthy, tall & very smart.  He knows why I don't eat animals (not in graphic detail, but he knows enough) and often tells other people that he doesn't eat them either.  I know that he'll encounter resistance as he grows - and he'll have to make his own choices.  But hopefully I've given him the tools to make those choices based on ethics, not on peer pressure. 

If you believe in something strong enough, then whatever other people have to say won't affect you.

While I greatly respect the opinions of those who have posted responses to this blog entry, I believe that your love for the welfare of animals may cloud your ability to see how truly unsustainable it can be to eat an exclusively vegetarian or vegan diet.

To preface this, I am a meat eater, a local food advocate and a part-time farmer.  I am also an animal lover.  Reading through many of these responses, I can see why many of you do not understand the "disconnect" associated with meat eating animal lovers--how can we love some animals and eat others?  For me, the answer is right under my....feet.

As someone who grew up working on a small family farm (one that grew only fruits and veggies, and did not raise animals), I have a very deep love for the land.  Not only is agriculture an economic engine, it also holds the ability--if managed properly--to help maintain and improve environmental quality.  It seems to be accepted by the agricultural and environmental community alike that farms that diversify their production and raise both crops and animals hold the greatest potential to realize this opportunity. 

Note this excerpt from a report published by the University of California-Davis more than ten years ago, "Optimum diversity may be obtained by integrating both crops and livestock in the same farming operation. This was the common practice for centuries until the mid-1900s when technology, government policy and economics compelled farms to become more specialized. Mixed crop and livestock operations have several advantages. First, growing row crops only on more level land and pasture or forages on steeper slopes will reduce soil erosion. Second, pasture and forage crops in rotation enhance soil quality and reduce erosion; livestock manure, in turn, contributes to soil fertility. Third, livestock can buffer the negative impacts of low rainfall periods by consuming crop residue that in "plant only" systems would have been considered crop failures. Finally, feeding and marketing are flexible in animal production systems. This can help cushion farmers against trade and price fluctuations and, in conjunction with cropping operations, make more efficient use of farm labor."  These assertions are as relevant today, if not more, than they were ten years ago.  To put it simply, raising animals and plants together in harmony is vital to maintaining the environmental quality of the land that provides sustenance to all of us (regardless of whether you eat meat or not).  

Now, I do not want to have a moral argument over the validity of consuming animals in our diets because this an argument that I believe is as personal a choice as who we’re voting for in an election year (although I tend to imagine that we can at least agree on that point, =).  I guess I’m saying let’s agree to disagree on the moral issue at its core (being eating animals regardless of the circumstance is utterly wrong).   

For the record, as I mention above, I am an avid local food advocate.  I know personally every farmer who I buy from each week at my local farmers’ market—including those that raise pork, poultry, beef, etc.  Every week I ask these farmers about their animals, and every week they give me details about the birth of a new litter or something cute or goofy one of the animals did.  You cannot tell me these people do not love their animals.  Yes, I know what you’re going to say: How can they love their animals so much if they are just going to kill them and sell them to be eaten?  My answer?  Just because they believe in a different lifestyle choice than you do, that does not mean that they do not share the same love for animals as you do.  In addition, who are we, any of us, to tell someone how he or she is supposed to make a living for him or herself?  How you eat is your choice, how small, family farmers make a living is not.   

As you can probably tell, I am NOT an advocate for factory farming.  I think it is despicable how animals especially are treated in these facilities, and I do not support these farms by buying anything animal related in a grocery story.  However, the term factory farm does not just refer to animal processing facilities.  It also refers to huge agricultural operations that are responsible for much of the food vegetarians and vegans consume.  These factory farms are not only bad for small, family farmers who try to compete with these huge agricultural giants, they also contribute mightily to the environmental degradation of our planet.  When one crop is farmed repeatedly on the same tract of land, year after year (as many factory farms throughout the world do) it depletes the land of its natural nutrients and releases tons and tons of carbon into the atmosphere.  (Over-tillage of agricultural land is one the largest contributors of carbon pollution, at least in the U.S.)  And don’t even get me started on “organic” production.  Factory farms produce tons upon tons upon tons of “organic” food every year.  However, the USDA’s standards of organic are so lax that pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals are still allowed to be used at an “appropriate” rate.  My point is that eating a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle alone does not necessarily mean you a good environmentalist. 

The best way to help agriculture have a possible effect on the environment (and give factory farms a big F you) is to loyally patronize your local farmers’ markets and agricultural producers.  Buying local cuts down on the energy it takes to transport food (where do you think your tomatoes and strawberries are coming from in January?) and injects your local economy with a much-needed infusion of capital.  Yes, it costs more than the grocery store, but only in dollars in cents. 

As I mentioned before, I do not wish to have a moral argument about eating/not eating meat.  All I want to do is promote the most sustainable way of eating whether you choose to eat meat or not—and that is to eat local.  Please think of the environment (as well as the animals) when deciding what you choose to put in you body. 

Think global, eat local.  

Greg - this is a really great response.  THANK YOU.

"All I want to do is promote the most sustainable way of eating whether you choose to eat meat or not—and that is to eat local."

I personally don't eat meat for many reasons (religious & ethical being a major part of my choice), but when I was first exploring vegetarianism at the age of 16, it was because of factory farming and what it did to the animals and the environment.  I'm not sure for *me* personally, if there were local meat options if I would have chosen to go that route, and this is because of who I am (something not easily transmitted in electronic letters on a screen) I don't think local meat would have made any difference to me.

That said, because *I* am not eating meat, my focus is actually on where my vegetables come from.  Here in Las Vegas, you can imagine that there aren't a lot of farms & that it can be difficult to grow your own gardens (or if you're like me & can't keep houseplants alive you know there isn't any hope of raising food enough to survive on!).  We actually patronize one family farm here in our neck of the woods, where we can pick fruit & vegetables ourselves, limiting what we take to only what we need, and consequently lessening what we need to buy at the grocery store. 

It's very important to me that my produce is in season, I'm not paying for asparagus in November, that's had to be trucked thousands of miles, etc..  In many ways, for everyone, it's not about eating meat vs. not eating meat, it's about being a responsible citizen of the world.  I don't eat meat because that's my choice, but those who continue to eat it should know there are better options out there.

So then, the question becomes: how deep are your ethics as a veg*n?  Where do you draw the line?  I like my food to be local, it's the responsible thing to do.  Because if I'm going to say I'm an ethical vegan, then I want that to extend to the foods I am actually putting on my plate.

Also, I boycott Wal-Mart!!

Thanks Greg.  I think more people need to hear what you have to say. 

Lisa-Try www.localharvest.org, if you haven't heard of it already. From an initial glance, it does seem like there are some farmers' markets and local distributors in your area. I hope you find some excellent seasonal produce, =)

Thanks Greg!  Checking it out right now!!!

Quote:

"But humans are naturally consumers of meat and plants, there is nothing wrong with that fact so don't get pushy. AND FOR THE RECORD: If I was in a tight spot and needed to, I would eat my dog.  And I wouldn't feel bad about it. I'm sure it would be kind of weird and also taste like shit but I'd do it. If I'm higher on the food chain and hungry enough, I'll eat anything.  And I'm not saying that just to annoy people, its just what I would do."

There are two things interesting about this argument Rachel. One, male humans also have a natural propensity for sexual violence as an evolutionary advantageous means to the end of reproducing their genetic material. This is "natural" fact, therefore, on your reasoning, it is right and ought not be challenged. Or is it not the "fact" of the thing that make's it right (which is, of course, a fallacy), but some other principle you are assuming without defending? I would guess the latter, but you should recognize your assumption.

And two, if I were in a "tight spot," I would eat you Rachel. However, I cannot derive from this "burning house" situation an ethical principle that governs my day-to-day interactions with you because the nature of "tights spots" can only be understood within context. Therefore, any attempt to deduce a principle from this claim of yours about eating dogs in certain situations is dubious at best. I would save a young person over an old person in a burning house, but that doesn't mean that the old person's interests every other day ought to be discarded.    

Quote:

"...just because they believe in a different lifestyle choice than you do, that does not mean that they do not share the same love for animals as you do.  In addition, who are we, any of us, to tell someone how he or she is supposed to make a living for him or herself?  How you eat is your choice, how small, family farmers make a living is not."

Your argument is premised on circular reasoning Greg. You facetiously attempt to rid veganism of its moral component - you call it a "lifestyle choice" and say we can't tell people how to live, etc. -, and then conclude that you don't want to have a moral argument. However, you already took a position on this point; it was assumed. The problem manifests itself when we consider other examples Greg: Insert human slaves into your equation, and then answer the question, "Ought we tell these people how to live or how to make a living?" Notice, you can't assume an answer to the moral question and then defend your position by saying you don't want to talk about morality. 

As you've assumed a negative answer to the moral question, I understand why you would rely on the argument you have about "sustainability." I would respond that if a practice is unethical, which flesh consumption is as this whole blog, this post, and all the comments are trying to get at, the utilitarian benefits you suggest don't equate to "right," at least without further defense. If it were proven that plants, nonhuman animals, and some minority population of the human species, if exploited "properly," could lead to environmental sustainability, would that make it right? If no, you are taking a moral position that trumps these utilitarian benefits. I would argue then, that the same holds for our exploitation of nonhuman animals. We ought to find another way. Merely because it "is" this way, which is what the study you cite indicates, doesn't mean it "should" or will inevitably be this way.

i just love how you guys try to impose your lifestyle on everyone else. why can't you spend your time and energy trying to save the whales or something?...maybe because it would take too much of your time and energy.

Again, you assume an answer to the moral question. Does someone who believes racism is immoral "impose their lifestyle on you" when they attempt to dissuade a racist from believing what they do? With do respect Rachel, you imply that ethics are subjective, which raises the question: Does that hold for anti-sexism, for example, as well? It is easy to bracket the moral question if you disagree that it is a moral question, which was Lincoln's rebuke to Douglas during their debates. Forcing another to suffer unnecessarily is not ethical; that's not a "lifestyle" claim, it is about justice.

Yes I am a carnivore... I make no illusions what that means. I love my dog and cat and I eat meat at every meal. I don't really care how animals that are going to be used as food are treated.

Honestly, wouldn't it be considerably crueler to treat the animal with affection and once he has settled into a nice life, call him over only to slit his throat and send him to a meat packing plant?

Food is food. I will continue to eat cow, chicken, and pig.  If the fancy strikes me I'll eat anything else as well... all the while playing my dog and cat.

Thank you for your time.

The above comment illustrates perfectly the ignorance questioned in this blog. If someone loves their dog/cat and funds the cruelty and killing of pigs/chickens, they must (er.. should) have a logical reason for it. There must be some fundamental difference they see between the two "types" of animals (those raised as pets, and those raised to be food). The question is why are some animals loved and some killed? If the answer is the same as the question (because they are raised to be loved/killed), then the logic is... not logic at all. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Quote: If someone loves their dog/cat and funds the cruelty and killing of pigs/chickens, they must (er.. should) have a logical reason for it.

I do not play with my food. A pet is an animal you adopt, for lack of a better word, to your family. Food is an animal that is raised for the sole purpose of killing and eating. What is so hard to understand about this difference?

Now if you are asking... Why is it ok to keep Cats and Dogs as pets and eat Cows, Chickens and Pigs? What is the difference?

Social norms play part of it but also governing laws. Cows, Chickens and Pigs are classified as livestock. You can not keep livestock in most, if not all, metropolitan areas. However, you can keep cats and dogs in those same areas. But let's take it a step further.

Rats are usually classified as vermin or pest and extermination is demanded by human habitation laws. Why is ok to exterminate rats? Mainly because they carry diseases and historically they are not clean animals.

So to answer your question... Why is it ok to eat Cows, Chickens and Pigs? Because they are raised to be livestock and historically are breed and eaten to feed people.

Hope this clears up your confusion.

Social norms dictate laws. Social norms (and thus, laws) are ever-changing and, in my opinion, can only be relied on when deciding the legality of a thing... Not when deciding the morality. For example, it is legal for a person to have their pet euthanized without rhyme or reason. Does that mean it is morally acceptable? Not to me. We are also legally allowed to have abortions. Does that make it morally acceptable? Not to the Catholics. Legality changes as societal norms change as human perception and science and opinion change. I think most people would agree that non-violence is moral, and violence as a general rule is not. Especially violence that is completely unnecessary (e.g. the cruel raising/killing of animals for food, hunting, animal experimentation, etc.).

You answered my question (Why is it okay to eat cows, chickens, and pigs simply because they are raised for that purpose?) by citing part of the question (Because they're raised for that purpose).

Child: "Why did you tell me to go to my room?"
Parent: "Because I told you to."
Child: "My mom has no concept of a valid argument."

Alex, I see you have a very philosophical mind, which I appreciate but believe contributes to you inability to see the true nature of my argument. 

First, you are correct that I assume an answer to the moral question of the ethical nature of eating meat--however, it is obvious to me that you do as well.  This clearly contributes to your unwillingness, or inability, to adequately address my main assertion: eating local is the most environmentally sustainable way to feed yourself, regardless of your (yes, I'll say it again) dietary lifestyle choice.  I simply defy you to prove me wrong.  I think it would be more constructive than simply attacking my ethics and morals, which I personally find repulsive.  I do not attempt to rid veganism of its moral component, but rather attempt to focus on the practical (again, as opposed to the moral) matter of dietary choice.  As many of you have discussed what you describe as the disconnect between animal lovers who are meat eaters, I believe that what Alex suffers from is a disconnect between field and fork. 

However, before I begin that discussion, I would like to address your assertion that ethics are not subjective.  Perhaps you are familiar with the competing schools of thought in human rights: universalism vs. relativism.  Universalism states that some (maybe just one) moral principle, rule, etc, applies to all people regardless of culture.  Relativism states that morality is culturally dependent and no moral principle, rule, etc, applies to all cultures.  To argue a relativist position, being immersed in a culture of agricultural production (such as raising animals from birth to death) leads those of us who have experienced this to have different morals and ethics concerning the consumption of animals.  I think it is wrong of you, Alex, to not accept this as a valid argument.  Look, I understand that you feel eating animals, regardless of circumstance, is morally reprehensible.  Although I do not feel the same way, I respect your view and your right to feel that way, and think that you should try and be equally as accommodating. 

With that said, in partial response to what William wrote, food is not food.  Produce, processed food and meat you buy in a grocery store is in no way equivilant to what you are able to purchase from local farmers and producers.  It is a fact that local food is fresher, more nutritious and environmentally sustainable than food purchased through a grocery chain (whether in be Whole Foods or Food Lion).  Also in response to William, I, as a meat eater, do care how the animals I will eat are treated during their lives.  Factory farming is wrong, just plain wrong.  As I mentioned in my previous post, it is disgusting to think how these animals are treated.  Not only are factory farms an animal welfare issue, they are an environmental issue—commercial livestock facilities are THE largest contributor to water pollution in the Unites States.  However, the point that I don’t think many of you feel is valid is that there is an alternative to factory-farmed meat.  Yes, it is still meat—but the animals are treated humanely (yes, I realize they will be killed) and farmers act as true stewards to our land. 

I feel like many vegans/vegetarians would rather destroy the entire rainforest in order to increase soy production, than admit that eating animals is a personal choice and not a practice that is up to societal debate.  I feel as though many vegans/vegetarians would rather eat fruits, veggies and nuts flown/shipped/driven from thousands of miles away, than admit there is a real alternative to factory farmed meat.  You are on a moral crusade, I understand, but do not stand on your high horses while you help contribute to the destruction of our planet.  There will be no animals left to save if we destroy the land that supports their existence.  EAT LOCAL.  Cut down on the fuel used, not only the transport, but to process the food that you eat.  Support farmers who care for the land (and their animals), and do not use pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals.  But most of all, THINK!

I don't assert that ethics are "objective" Greg, I merely highlight the inconsistency in those who would argue that veganism is a "lifestyle," a choice like any other, which assumes subjectivity when we are having an ethical discourse (I don't assume the answer, this entire blog is a defense of the answer Greg), while failing to follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: subjective ethics.

Quote:

"Relativism states that morality is culturally dependent and no moral principle, rule, etc, applies to all cultures.  To argue a relativist position, being immersed in a culture of agricultural production (such as raising animals from birth to death) leads those of us who have experienced this to have different morals and ethics concerning the consumption of animals."

The logical conclusion then, Greg, is that slavery is moral within certain contexts. Jim Crow was moral in the 50's. Nazism was ethically acceptable within Nazi Germany, and thus what followed, the Holocaust, was defensible. I'm comfortable with this argument, although I do disagree of course. However, my consistent point is that if one challenges veganism for its subjectivity one is tacitly making the claim that ethics are subjective in the same way. Unless you define a principle to separate the two "kinds" of ethics you cannot escape this conclusion.

As to your assertion about eating local, I never disagreed. Therefore, why would I challenge it? I thought that would have been clear... 

My criticism was aimed at your utilitarian justification for killing animals for food. I submit that if you are to be consistent then you would have to equally reason this way if it were proven that replacing animals with some minority of the human population was equally environmentally sustainable - we could even "eat them locally." If you are uncomfortable with that conclusion then you must find another defense of killing animals for food because the utilitarian justification isn't applied consistently. 

Quote:

"So to answer your question... Why is it ok to eat Cows, Chickens and Pigs? Because they are raised to be livestock and historically are breed and eaten to feed people."

So does it follow, William, that those who appealed to this same justification, verbatim, to defend the institution of slavery - remember blacks were "raised" for X, Y, and Z purposes as well - were making a sound argument? Or would you agree that they needed to first premise a defense of the practice itself, while avoiding the easily dismantled (because it doesn't follow logically or ethically), "Because that's the way it has always been"?

Greg-I think most vegans/vegetarians agree that eating local is very important, but regarding this...."eating local is the most environmentally sustainable way to feed yourself, regardless of your (yes, I'll say it again) dietary lifestyle choice.  I simply defy you to prove me wrong."

I really wish I had more time to defy you, but let's start with this....(From Change.org's Emily Gertz)
http://globalwarming.change.org/blog/view/one_reason_eating_locally_wont_stop_global_warming_and_3_reasons_it_mightCarnegie Mellon's Christopher Weber, the lead author of the study, (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/apr/science/ee_foodmiles.html), suggested that the dietary change that can have the biggest effect on global warming is not eating local, but eating less meat.

“I feel like many vegans/vegetarians would rather destroy the entire rainforest in order to increase soy  production…” In the Amazon, 70 percent of once-forested land is now used for grazing cattle.

Finally, about 300 million people live in the US; and almost all those people eat meat.  Every year, 10 billion domesticated land animals are slaughtered for food in the United States.  So, we both agree factory farms need to go, but how exactly do you and your small, local farm with grass fed beef and “happy” chickens feed the US? Without even considering the ethical question of choosing to kill a living, feeling sentient being because you like the way it tastes, the obvious answer is veganism. A veg diet can feed significantly more people than a diet based on meat. So, yes, a vegan diet grown locally is the most sustainable (and compassionate and healthy) way to feed yourself.

Booyah. (sorry. I'm in a mood).

You did not defy me, but simply supported my point, and that I appreciate.  We both, apparently, agree that eating locally is the most sustainable way to feed yourself.  I read through the links you provided, and they make some good points—I do think people should cut down on the amount of meat they consume--however I think you may be interested to hear about a study published by Cornell University in 2007 that suggests "eating small amounts of meat and eggs is ecologically more efficient than eating a vegetarian diet" (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html)  Sorry be so blunt (daring you to defy me), but I was feeling a bit militant today—perhaps I went a bit too far. One of the links you posted also talked about the methane released by cows.  While it is true that methane can be a significant pollutant, it also has the ability to generate energy through the use of methane digesters.  Have you heard of the cow power program in Vermont?  You may be interested: http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/. So, yes, a diet consisting of moderate amounts of meat and dairy, coupled with local consumption, is the most sustainable way to feed yourself.  Also, the Cornell study should help disprove your assertion that a vegan diet can feed more people than one that contains animal products.

Hi,

Absolutely terrific blog position statement!

In one of my circle of friends, we see people whom cherrish cats and dogs but eat animal vestiges as victims of their own conscious rift...."rifters" as we compassionately refer to them. I was a rifter for a while myself....I didn't then realize that I had a choice to not eat flesh. I was brainwashed by society (school, parents, tv, etc, etc, etc) into believing that I HAD TO eat meat to live. Here are 3 of my favorite images relating to this enigma: 1)  http://static.flickr.com/122/303247075_09e94e9c8d.jpg

2)  http://www.farmusa.org/images/CatPig5F.jpg

3)  http://bp2.blogger.com/_uhoqgMLe47c/R_rwCjKMokI/AAAAAAAAAC4/EaAU3Vr3-NM/S760/whynot.jpg

Keep up the great work for the animals all!


Warmly,
Louie


p.s.  a terrific, free, international site for compassionate people to connect, network, socialize, blog etc is at:  www.CrueltyFree.com ...come visit.

As I'm reading through all the posts since my last post, I've come to a few conclusions - in specific regard to MYSELF.  But, I'm guessing everyone can relate to something I'm going to say here...

1) I am a vegan for many reasons (environmental, health, ethics), but the main reason is "ahimsa" - the belief that you should not harm another living being.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa  Being a student of yoga & buddhism, it's very important to me that I do not contribute (willingly & voluntarily) to the harm of a living creature.  Some will argue about exceptions (ie spraying for bugs in my house or animals harmed by pesticides), but the purpose is to not do these things on purpose, but to purposefully reduce your harmfulness.

2) How deep do my veg*n ethics go?  I don't just care about eliminating animal products from my diet, I care deeply about how the plants in my diet are produced & transported.  I don't shop at Wal-Mart, I try to buy in season, I visit farmers' markets & local farms.  http://oboe-wan.blogspot.com/2008/09/fall-harvest-part-1-gathering.html  To me, it's not just about cutting meat, it's about doing the right thing to the degree that soothes my conscience.

3) Eating local is important.  I agree wholeheartedly w/Greg that local foods are the way to go.  Even if I can't convince my friends to become veg*n, I like to think I had a hand in convincing them to buy local and to read labels. 

4) Industrial farming is a major reason to rethink the way we eat.  In the last few decades, factory farms have become the norm, and that's scary.  Some people say they don't care where their food comes from - but is that really honestly true?  When you first learned about Mad Cow Disease (BSE) did you have a just a little anxiety over it?  Wouldn't you like to know that the animals you are eating were treated right?  By which I don't mean treated like pets necessarily, but that they were treated in such a way that they were healthy at slaughter & not dragged in by tractors or forklifts, they hadn't been pumped full of medications?  Wouldn't it be nice if they did actually come from a farm like in Charlotte's Web?  I'm sorry, but I think everyone cares to some degree - otherwise there wouldn't be meat recalls & media coverage of abuse or ballot initiatives to improve the treatment of farm animals.

When it comes down to it, I don't believe that chosing not to eat meat is the "bad" or "wrong" option.  Our hearts are all in the right places.  The question is how far are you willing to take it?  And if you're not going to cut meat, what sorts of ethics can you attach to your choice to eat it?  How far are you willing to go to make sure you're doing right by the food you choose?  I don't think I should have to justify why I don't eat flesh.  It seems like it should be obvious and respected. 

Veg*ns distancing themselves from the industrial farming practices isn't the "bad" thing here.  It's a step to living the ethics we personally hold dear.  By explaining myself, though, it doesn't mean I am "imposing" my choices on other people, I'm just explaining why they are right for me.

"why can't you spend your time and energy trying to save the whales or something?...maybe because it would take too much of your time and energy."  No matter what causes people take up, there will always be others who make fun of them. 

Quote:

"...why can't you spend your time and energy trying to save the whales or something?...maybe because it would take too much of your time and energy."

As if these actions weren't directly related to vegan education right? As opposed to the dichotomy suggested by Rachel here, these actions follow perfectly from ethical veganism, thus, I can't grasp the challenge.

My views on the matter of eating or not eating meat reside in the measure of how speciesist you are. I am somewhat speciesist. I've grew up all around the world, and we always had animals growing up, so it has become second nature for people in my family to regard them as, well, members of the family, to some degree.

  The difference is in how I consider a dog in relation to a human. As a moral hypothetical, if I were on a desert island alone with a dog, I can't say with absolute certainty whether I would kill the dog or starve. My general feeling is that I would starve (islands are lonely places to be dealing with moral quandaries / food guilt). Now if my fictional fiance were on the island too, and I had to choose between killing the dog or seeing HER starve, Rex would be a chargrilled puppy in no time at all.

  To people like me, the slavery analogy is inherently flawed. It requires you to perceive humans and their animal counterparts as a collective whole. I certainly don't, and I definitely don't view the diversity of the Kingdom Animalia on an even plane. For some, sentience is enough, for me, this criteria for equal ethical treatment is highly suspect. Richard Dawkins, a very smart guy, would appear to disagree with me in this <a href="http://www.pointofinquiry.org/richard_dawkins_science_and_the_new_atheism">
discussion</a> (scroll down for the MP3 download).

The key point to take from that if you don't feel like listening is:

"What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven't yet produced to break out of that. It's a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery."

  In fact, when you put it like that, it looks like this is a wonderful analogy, especially aimed at people like me who believe that vegetarianism fails on a number of practical levels. But, alas, it also requires that you view an animal's right to live as equal to that of a human being's right to live. I understand that many people do, but I sit back and think, "Seriously? If you had to shoot your mother, or shoot a horse, would you really find the decision that difficult?"

  Contextual and historical defenses seem flimsy to me, at best. I don't eat animals because it is a societal norm. I eat them, because if there were no environmental factors to consider, food supply issues, and if industrial farming were no more, I would probably find some way to kill the animals myself. There is no cognitive dissonance involved in that statement.

  Why can I pat my dog and eat my hamburger? Because my dog isn't in my hamburger. Even if it was dogburger it wouldn't make a difference. Why? Because it's not MY dog in the burger. To suggest that I should give another dog moral deference to the degree that I would my pet is not a logical argument, because I don't view animals in general as a collective body with an attached moral prohibition (in this case, "Thou shall not dine on thy doggie"). If you still believe this involves some level of cognitive dissonance, consider the pure animosity shown by some dog owners to certain breeds.

  It's not a bifurcated view at all if you stop treating animals like a giant collective and more like individual entities. I don't love my dogs and cats because I deem them more 'worthy' on some level than other members of their species. We, together, are victims of circumstance. I certainly didn't love them on the first day I bought them. It took lots of time, occasionally being peed on, and a little of the anthropomorphism that made me upset as a kid when my teddy bear fell off the bed and I felt like he'd been 'lonely'. See, I even called my old teddy bear a 'he'. 'tis human nature :)

  My moral obligation remains to those creatures who hold a similar moral obligation towards me, and are liable to fulfill such an obligation.

  Human existence requires a somewhat pragmatist approach to life. Concepts like Ahimsa and Utilitarianism are flawed, because they deal in absolutes that we are unable to achieve. More significantly, they are flawed because efforts in the direction of making a compromise by merely working towards those absolutes hold greater moral perils than simple situational decision-making based on what you may hold universal moral principles to be.

  So, to get to the rub, the issue for me is never going to be whether actually eating other species is wrong, but how they are treated prior to their demise. This is essential.


 

i had a pig roast for my 50 birthday party. for those of you who don't know what a pig roast is, it's when you  slow roast a whole pig minus it's inards over indirect hot coals for hours until the star of the show is at least 170 degrees done!!!yummy!!!now, i mind you this is a u.s.d.a. inspected pig,goverment approved pig.cooked in a home built pit in the great commonwealth of massasachusets(you know that liberal state) where we also kill lobsters in boiling water.(yummy)... but if you want to save the dogs,go to china where they have a delicacy called puppy-on-a-stick. and their govt. will not sign on to the kioto accord,so they can continue to pollute the atmosphere without any reprocussions

also,a live tree gives you shade. a dead tree gives you warmth when it's burning in a fire,which is romantic,and could lead to making love,which could lead to a new child being born into this world .shade is nice but i'll take the dead tree any day!! no tree hugger here!!!!!!!

" people like me who believe that vegetarianism fails on a number of practical levels."
I'd like to hear about this because I don't find any practical problems with my own choices.

"Ahimsa" is flawed?  Living without doing voluntary harm isn't something to strive for?  The Golden Rule: flawed?  Tell that to the billions of people who follow any sort of religion. 

Quote:

" My moral obligation remains to those creatures who hold a similar moral obligation towards me, and are liable to fulfill such an obligation."

Are mentally retarded individuals left out of your moral community, DJ? Surely some elderly individuals and all infants don't qualify. Are these groups of human animals available for my exploitation under your moral rules?

Your hypothetical "island situation" is a marginal moral case, therefore, it fails to provide the foundation you assume it does. Consider: I would alter your hypothetical slightly, and replace the dog with an infant. My choice: I would eat the infant. Or replace your fiance with an elderly women, and the dog with a teenage, mentally challenged girl. My conclusion would be to consume the elderly woman. My reasoning, however, doesn't imply a general moral principle about the relative moral status of each of these individuals in everyday circumstances; nor does it suggest a moral evaluation of their interests. DJ, they are "burning house" situations and can only be considered in context.

Furthermore, the slavery analogy does not depend on regarding nonhuman animals and animals as a "collective whole" (whatever that means?). It merely relies on accepting the premise that a capacity to have interests qualifies X for membership in the moral community. What follows is a consideration of the interests violated, and what this interests violation is premised upon - speciesism, in the case of nonhuman animals, and racism, in the case of human slaves. It is not an implicit statement of "equality" between a horse and human animal being made by ethical veganism. It is a recognition of their capacity to feel, a statement that there is no defensible justification for ignoring these interests - and thus treating a "she" as an "it" -, which results in elevating the horse from the status of "thing" to that of a member in the moral community. On this premise, analogizing the Holocaust, for example, begins to make more sense.

Michael, are you making a point or being purposely rude? Why, I wonder, would you engage in a conversation without the necessary "tools" at your disposal? I applaud those who disagree for  participating. For the children, please leave the table and let the adults have a discussion.

It's to bad that when someone inflicks pain like this on an animal, that they should be able to feel the pain too right along with the animal.

i am an Animal Lover .i have 2 yorkies , an one longhair  daschound , the are my Kids . i love them .more than Life .there love ,is uncondional.i dont know what i would do if someone , would hurt them ,in any shape size or Form . an if i see any Buddy mistreaten any Animal , i would contacht the sheriff ,an make sure .that the will be arestet. my Doggies are my best friends .

Lisa: Ahimsa is a nice concept, but flawed in practical terms. As far as bringing religion into it goes...well, I don't know why you would want to do that. The masses are not always right, and religious endorsement brings no weight to anything.

Alex: in terms of having a moral obligation towards those who have a moral obligation towards me, allow me to be more explicit in my meaning. Those terms don't apply to human beings. I thought it was pretty clear that I'm quite pro-human. In fact, it's the basis of the views that I put forward.

  So, to answer your rhetorical question, the old, infirm and disabled fit into my moral equation just fine. Let's go back to the desert island scenario, which you seem to think occupies a space outside the bounds of my argument.

  So, here I am, on a desert island, with someone I care about deeply and someone else who, for whatever reason, is challenged in some way as a human being. How ominous. The thing is, I specifically pointed out that if I was alone, I wouldn't necessarily eat the dog (in the scenario that included the dog, obviously). Taking that into account, why would I eat another human being? Why would my loved one? You would only begin to consider your proposal if you consider this group of human beings on the same level as animals...which I don't. As I implied before, I don't even regard all animals on the level as each other.

  Sure, a person with strong mental disabilities may not be smarter than a pretty intelligent pig by some accounts, but as a whole, our species is almost certainly several orders of magnitude more cognisant than almost all other species. So does awareness on a greater (if more ambiguous) scale play a part? Sure. I actually don't eat pig products if I can help it. I find dolphin and whale hunting deeply unsettling. I'd probably prefer to hang out with chimps than some of the people I know. But, like I said, I'm speciesist. I'm not absolving myself from moral responsibility - but I am accepting it, and I am giving the issue the thought it deserves.

  You see, the thing is, we all have to eat. You wouldn't hold a herd of starved feral hogs morally accountable for eating a human being, would you? It's my personal conclusion after substantial thought and research that we're not built to survive as herbivores, nor would we as a species be able to continue doing so if we all made this dietary leap of faith.

  Hogs, of course, are not accountable in the same way that we are, by my own standards of consciousness. I take issue with any animal being killed outside of the bounds of necessity. But my core argument is that we do need to kill animals out of necessity, make no mistake about that. You may disagree, but that is a strong part of the reason I feel the way I feel.

  I can't really tell where you're going when describing this "moral community" that animals exist in. It's clearly not a give and take community, because the animal in your premise is almost certainly not regarding you with the same sense of selflessness as you regard it. My justification for ignoring its interests is that I regard the interests of the human race as whole (young, old, and disabled alike) as taking precedence.

  I'm not sure where you're going with the holocaust analogy. Usually, I'd just invoke Godwin's Law and leave it at that, but I think what you're trying to say is that the Nazis participated in the willful persecution of those they deemed 'less than human' under their own standards, much like I am doing?

  First of all, that seems extreme, considering that we're not actually talking about human beings here ("Aha!" you say, "but that's what Nazis said!", but I'll run with you and pitch the concept around. The problem with that analogy is that because the group being persecuted were human beings, they were actually part of a mutually beneficial moral community. It's difficult to argue with the idea if you've decided outright that animals have the same rights as human beings, based on their capacity to feel. In that regard, the analogy DOES work...but I preempted this argument, because as we both know, I AM speciesist.

  The Nazis may have defended their position in terms of speciesism too, but I'm sure you'll agree, my argument holds slightly more water than theirs based on all current definitions of what is human and what is not.

  Back to the interesting concept of moral accountability, which was one of the points you assailed. When does an animal truly become elevated? Not in terms of transforming into a 'he' or 'she' from an 'it' or 'thing' (because I never regard animals as mere things, in any respect) but in terms of making the transition into being a member of this moral community. When they truly do participate as members of a moral community seems to be a reasonable answer. Dogs protect their owners, even without being trained. This is an example of mutually binding moral agreement between man and beast.

  The sad fact is that this is behaviour that has to be cultivated in almost all cases (and in many cases, it cannot be cultivated or even trained into animals) and is not innate. To some degree, it may not be innate in human beings either, but our capacity for selflessness stretches beyond simple instinct. Therein lies our humanity.

  Michael, you may want to read this article before you take a break from shit-stirring and and making your first trip from the state to get some delicious puppy stew from those slanty-eye'd asian folk: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/77305.html

And it's the Kyoto Protocol. KYoto. It's a place, Michael, in Japan. *sigh*

General reading, for people who are interested: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

It's been a while since I read it - but the inclusion of the categorical imperative at the top reinforces my old conclusion that it was more thoughtful than most, I think. I'll give it a re-read when I have more time, but I think there are some good points in there.

A couple things:

Quote: <I>But my core argument is that we do need to kill animals out of necessity, make no mistake about that. You may disagree, but that is a strong part of the reason I feel the way I feel.</I>

I would really like to see this statement explained. You really claim that we kill over 10 billion animals annually (in the U.S. alone) out of <B>necessity</B>? Wow. I've actually never heard that before.

Quote: <I>The sad fact is that this is behaviour that has to be cultivated in almost all cases ... and is not innate. To some degree, it may not be innate in human beings either, but our capacity for selflessness stretches beyond simple instinct. Therein lies our humanity.</I>

I would also like to hear your explanation of this. I once had a discussion with a philosophy professor about this. He said, "I think everyone agrees that human beings can reason and animals cannot." I begged to differ. I believe that humans (most of us anyway) have higher reasoning than other animals... I don't think human's selflessness is any different from animals', except our that our reasons are different. A dog saves his drowning master to save HIMSELF from death ("this guy feeds me, so I'd better keep him alive"). I save a drowning baby to save myself from scorn, anger, and possible jail-time. Or, one could argue, to save my species. I believe other animals use reasoning just as we do.  I would like to see further conversation (here) about this. I find it fascinating.

Quote: <I>Sure, a person with strong mental disabilities may not be smarter than a pretty intelligent pig by some accounts, but as a whole, our species is almost certainly several orders of magnitude more cognisant than almost all other species. So does awareness on a greater (if more ambiguous) scale play a part? Sure.</I>

You don't give a reason here. That bugs me. To include infants and mentally disabled humans in your circle because the REST of the humans are more cognisant, doesn't make sense. This argument says your criteria for superiority and (therefore, apparently, the right to treat the inferior however you wish) is "human-ness" and nothing else. You've admitted that. But the problem lies in the "why" of that. Why is it "human-ness" that is the criteria. If you were a chimp, you'd have a real problem with that. Just as a black person would have a problem with slavery, or a woman would have a problem with not being allowed to vote, drive, or earn equal pay.

Here are some good quotes, since I am not nearly as articulate as these folks:

I don`t hold animals superior or even equal to humans. The whole case for behaving decently to animals rests on the fact that we are the superior species. We are the species uniquely capable of imagination, rationality, and moral choice - and that is precisely why we are under an obligation to recognize and respect the rights of animals.
-- Brigid Brophy

There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties... The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery.
-- Charles Darwin

"If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth -- beings who considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals -- would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals?"
-- George Bernard Shaw

Forgive my non-working html.

Lisa - great quotes!  Thank you.  :)

DJ - there are a lot of problems here:  "The problem with that analogy is that because the group being persecuted were human beings, they were actually part of a mutually beneficial moral community." because the people being persecuted weren't voluntarily going along w/being exterminated.  They fought, hid, screamed, felt pain, but were still viewed as animals.  For me, the core problem w/the holocaust are any references that don't recognize the fact that the "people" stopped being "people" in the eyes of their oppressors.  They were treated as cattle, and suffered worse, because they are humans.  The Nazi analogy is really only relevant in proving that the cruelest of our species don't know where to stop when it comes to inflicting pain & suffering on the weak.

"Ahimsa is a nice concept, but flawed in practical terms"  Again, I'm just going to say that deciding to live according to a moral code, especially one that asks you to be KIND, is not the problem, nor is it flawed.  The problem is when people don't have any moral code.  I'm sorry I brought the word "religion" into my statement, because Buddhism isn't a religion. 

My understanding of Ahimsa is very basic, but I believe that (although it has many, many forms) it is based on the premise of non-violence, not necessarily being "kind."  Is that correct?

In this case, I belive Ahimsa is only flawed because of its narrow moral view.  Lisa, I completely agree with you that it is those who live without any moral code who are the problem.  However, I belive a moral code that is broader and based on the premises of equality, social responsibility and compassion would be more beneficial than one based on non-violence alone.  (For example, someone who believes in Ahimsa would have no problem voting for something like Proposition 8 in CA because it does not cause violence--although it does cause inequality.)

This isn't taking anything away from Ahimsa, but rather me trying to understand what it means in practice.  Am I wrong to understand Ahimsa as focusing on violence while not dealing with other moral issues?

You can look up ahimsa on wikipedia & get a very thorough definition of what it means. 

My teachers have stressed that ahimsa, non-violence, isn't just "not killing" but not causing suffering of any kind.  What is suffering?  Perhaps a hurtful word uttered with the intent of injuring the other person's feelings.  Perhaps it's you berating yourself for making a mistake - thus hurting yourself.  It's also a call to compassion - if someone purposefully hurts you, instead of engaging in a fight, you "retaliate" with kindness to difuse the situation.  In other words: turn the other cheek. 

Refraining from eating meat is one of the most important aspects of ahimsa for me:  the being whose flesh you consume suffered for the sake of your appetite.  The suffering may not be directly laid at your feet (you didn't raise the animal in a small cage or slaughter it before it was unconscious) but by supporting a system that does the "dirty work" for you, you are causing suffering to the animals.

Living with Ahimsa requires that you see all suffering as a bad thing - not just suffering directly affecting you.

Suffering can result from stealing, ignorance, apathy, dishonesty, greed - if you follow these (and other) actions to their conclusion.  For example: Stealing something from Wal-Mart might feel like a protest against the mega-corporation, but you're probably not the only one who has stolen from the store, and after all the losses are added up, the store makes cuts in the work force or in health care benefits. 

Ahimsa can simply be a way of thinking beyond yourself & your current situation - seeing how your actions affect others.  I don't think this is narrow at all, in fact, it's quite a broad reaching moral code, especially when one sees beyond the dictionary definition and begins to experience a life of compassion. 

Quote:

"the old, infirm and disabled fit into my moral equation just fine. Let's go back to the desert island scenario, which you seem to think occupies a space outside the bounds of my argument."

It occupies a space outside all moral reasoning, DJ, because it represents a "marginal case" where general principles cannot be extrapolated to the whole. I inserted other examples into the hypothetical to prove this basic moral point. 

Quote:

"I can't really tell where you're going when describing this "moral community" that animals exist in. It's clearly not a give and take community, because the animal in your premise is almost certainly not regarding you with the same sense of selflessness as you regard it. My justification for ignoring its interests is that I regard the interests of the human race as whole (young, old, and disabled alike) as taking precedence."

So, without justification, you declare by fiat that humans, regardless of any other characteristics, are included in the community of those who count, morally speaking. I argue that this claim is grounded on "group membership," which follows the same line of reasoning as the racist. I rejected this reasoning; you accepted it, admitting your speciesism.

Quote:

"When they truly do participate as members of a moral community seems to be a reasonable answer."

This is your misunderstanding (or selective reasoning?). My point is simple: It follows from our inclusion of babies and the mentally handicapped in the community of those whose interests count that it is not the capacity to reciprocate an obligation that is morally relevant. Rather, our inclusion of these groups, if we are to avoid being speciesist and thus have a valid reason to challenge the sexist, rests on their capacity to suffer, which then appeals to the "harm principle" (basic, in moral reasoning): pursue those actions that cause the least amount of harm to sentient beings. (The inclusion of the "categorical imperative" would also exclude some groups of humans (Kant exluded women, for example); however, you're a confessed speciesit, and consciously avoid this perfectly logical conclusion.)

DJ, our dispute, in the end, rests on your belief that veganism isn't healthy. I disagree; I'm living proof of the deep flaws in this belief, for example. Indeed, it's unbelievable to me that you would belief this. Therefore, if you can't accept this premise, than everything else we have discussed is for naught.

I appreciated this post.  There's too much to remember from the posts above, since they don't show on my screen as I'm typing. 
Just some random thoughts: 
I think one reason people don't make the connection between their dog and their food is that they don't have a personal relationship with the animals that were killed for their food, and/or didn't see it done. People have a certain "psychological investment" in their own pets, and pets have "familial" status.
The rainforests are being cleared (in part) to grow feed for livestock, not soy for vegans.  
After watching this auction of puppy mill dogs, the correlation with slavery works for me:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEt1rkq0Gw4
The island question is interesting to think about, with the various people we might be with.  But it doesn't have anything to do with our actual lives, and isn't something we'd ever have to make a decision about.  (I wouldn't kill the dog regardless of who I was with.  I don't even think I could eat the dog, if the dog starved first.  But it's a non-issue, because I wouldn't be in a place like that in the first place.)

First of all anyone with any intellengence would not use plants verses animals as an argument for eating animal flesh. Any 5 year old knows plants are not sentient beings, are not aware of themselves, do have emotions. That is one of the most childish ways of trying to justify eating animal flesh.
Anyone who would make a disgusting remark that they would eat thier own dog needs to examine themselves. Anyone that deperate to eat animal flesh needs to start finding out why eating meat is so important that they would even eat thier dog. If they truely think that if meat was not available they would die if they had to live on plant life alone. I sure hope they are wrong or I am going to be dead soon. I eat only plant life.
Anyone who says there is a difference between dogs, cats and farm animals has never been around farm animals and is stating a conditioned attitude society has put in thier thinking. They have not been around a pig who has the intellegence of a 5 yr old child. Or chickens who live in a complicated social system. Or a cow who cries for days after her calve at a day old is ripped away from her. That person knows nothing about farm animals.
Anyone who still says eating animal flesh is healthy and nessary for a healthy diet is quoting outdated information. There has been too many report on the ill effects of eating animal flesh. Eating animal flesh is simply and plainly a selfish desire for the taste of it. Eating animal flesh does give you vitimins, potein or any other nutrition that you could get from plant foods. In fact the amount of nutritition you get from meat compared to eating plant foods is so low it is not even worth eating the meat. You are basicly eating anitbotics, hormones, fat and colestrial and calories. Once you heat the meat any nutrition value is lost. So start eating your meat raw if you want any nutritional value at all.
It is time poeple stop living like barbarians and become educated and started living as civilized beings. There is absolutely no reason to eat animal flesh except to satisy a lustful desire for it.
It disgusts me the arguments poeple use to try to justify eating animal flesh. there is no argument that can justify it. For every reason a person gives for eating meat a dozen more can be given for not eating meat. The major 2 are health reasons, and our enviroment. Anyone who eats meat is not concerned with thier health, and definetely is not concerned with our enviromental issues.
It disgusts me that a person can love and lavish affection on their dog, get upset over animal abuse, and sit down to the dinner table and eat a steak, roast, fried chicken and think they care about animals. And say well farm animals sole purpose is to be raised and eaten. Who decides what a farm animal is? In India cows are worshipped, in China dogs and cats are eaten, in the US ANY ANIMAL IS EATEN. 
What makes something right and acceptable?
A hundred years ago slavery was considered not only acceptable but nessary. It was normal to sell a slave baby, or auction off humans on auction blocks like we do animals now.
Until this century woman couldn't vote, or have equal pay to men, or even hold many professional positions.
Childern were considered property and what is considered child abuse now was acceptable treatment for centuries.
A man could rape his wife and it was legal. Beat his wife and no one said a word, it was between the man and his wife.
So what is right and acceptable? What makes something ok? SOCIETY? Because everyone is doing it?
It is time poeple start living civilized, stop living barbaric out dated traditions. It is time poeple start thinking and not acting on what others do, and what society says is ok. Obviously society has not had a good track record on what is right, acceptable or ethical.

Very good article adn some great comments.
I don't know how many have seen it but if you don't please watch "Earthlings" !

There are three stages of truth
1. Ridicule
2. Viollent Opposition
3. Acceptance

EARTHLINGS is a feature length documentary about humanity's absolute dependence on animals (for pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific research) but also illustrates our complete disrespect for these so-called "non-human providers." The film is narrated by Academy Award nominee Joaquin Phoenix (GLADIATOR) and features music by the critically acclaimed platinum artist Moby

Here is a link to google video where you can see the full leanght video. It's 90 minutes. There are some short clips too but look for full leanght one
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=earthlings+full&emb=0&aq=0&oq=earthlings#

Earthlings 1:35:28 - Sep 19, 2008 - 3 months ago -





Also please support my cause
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_the_live_skinning_of_animals_everywhere

Quote: "If they truely think that if meat was not available they would die if they had to live on plant life alone. I sure hope they are wrong or I am going to be dead soon. I eat only plant life."

  I wonder, if you were "set free" in the  northern winter wilderness  (like this place: http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/alaska/ice-dogs.gif )  how long would it take you to kill something to eat, and for fur to wear to keep from freezing to death? 

  And for the people who would eat their dogs, that is the wrong solution.  The dog can help you kill something bigger than a dog, and then you and the dog can eat together.

The extreme example of having to survive in the wild is not something many of us will face in our lifetimes.  There are very rare cases where people are "set free" in the wild (except on t.v.) to survive like wild-men.  And comparing killing an animal when faced with life & death choices to picking up a slab of meat from the butcher isn't relevant. It's like criticizing villagers in Africa for hunting just because we here can shop.

But, I do agree with you that the dog is a helpful companion in such a situation.  Isn't that why dogs were originally domesticated?

"But, I do agree with you that the dog is a helpful companion in such a situation.  Isn't that why dogs were originally domesticated?"

   One reason for all of this Animal Rights foolishness is the fact that people are too separated from the real world; as you pointed out the need to kill to survive is a foreign concept to many.   But for some it is a fact of life that people in cities can't relate to.  I  think that until a person has needed to kill to eat, or to feed their children, maybe they shouldn't be telling others they shouldn't do that. 

  And yes, that is part of the reason that dogs were domesticated in the first place.   If the AR people get their way, the domestic dog will be extinct soon.  They're working to get everything sterilized and incapable of reproduction, they're working to take away ownership of any domestic animals at all.   http://endangeredowner.blogspot.com/ 

 

I love how people come on here to post ignorant responses. Do they really have nothing better to do? Lol. There is no difference between "pets" and "food" besides the way people were raised to think. It's ridiculous. Certain animals are not "meant to be eaten", and other "meant to be pets".

Not ALL slaughter houses mistreat animals.

Becuase when I go to the grocery store I don't know what brands abuse animals or not, I buy my meat straight from a farm where I know they aren't mistreated and jacked up on steriods, they are organicly raised animals. And they get feed a VERY lean diet so they produce healthy meat, not the fatty stuf you buy at the store *shivers*
I have a couple friends that own a farm out in east colorado, I hunt there all year round, and I see their animals all the time. They aren't abused in anyway.
Also kosher farms do the same, as well as organic farms.

Are you confusing slaughterhouses with farms?  
Some farmers may treat their animals better than the majority that are raised in confinement systems, but I'm wondering how humane slaughter can be the best of circumstances.  
Here's some information about the (in)famous kosher slaughterhouse that was eventually closed months after another newsworthy Fed raid on their illegal alien workers:  
http://www.jewishjournal.com/food/article/peta_says_agriprocessors_misled_rabbis_about_slaughter_procedures_video_200/

Here's a little bit different take on Postville:http://www.rrrina.com/kosher.htm

I'm glad to acknowledge that the rabbis in this article were horrified by what they saw in the video.  

Do we have a source that's not from PETA? I don't want to start the whole is PETA good or bad arguement, but since that always seems to come up somewhere along the line perhaps we can get a source that's not from them?

Quote:

"I buy my meat straight from a farm where I know they aren't mistreated and jacked up on steriods, they are organicly raised animals."

Connor,

By law, your friends cannot slaughter cows, for example, therefore your argument is baseless unless you have participated in the slaughter of these animals you receive a passing gastronomical pleasure from.

Cynthis said, "One reason for all of this Animal Rights foolishness is the fact that people are too separated from the real world; as you pointed out the need to kill to survive is a foreign concept to many."  


The separation from the "real world" that allows us to eat without killing animals every day is called "civilization."  More of us should become civilized.  If someone has no choice but to live in an igloo, I have no problem with them eating fish.  I just wouldn't consider the person civilized.  Farther from being civilized is a person who kills unnecessarily.

I find the argument that there is a logical disconnect by people who love their pets yet see no problem with eating meat a bit specious. I also love my friends and family and dislike/hate some other humans. Just because I love one animal does not preclude me from desiring to eat another one.

However, I don't judge vegans/vegetarians for trying to convince me to stop eating meat, as long as they don't criticize me in some way when they are unable to do so (i.e. by saying I'm "illogical," or I suffer from some brutalistic tendencies or some other such nonsense). I will agree with them that at the very least, animals that are bred for slaughter should be treated more humanely; I wrote a letter to Hormel after seeing a PETA video showing them spraying paint up pigs' noses and beating them with crowbars.

Maltreatment of any living being simply for fun is atrocious; eating animals for sustenance is nutritious.

Quote:

"I find the argument that there is a logical disconnect by people who love their pets yet see no problem with eating meat a bit specious. I also love my friends and family and dislike/hate some other humans. Just because I love one animal does not preclude me from desiring to eat another one."

William C.,

It is a "logical disconnect" because there isn't a morally relevant nor an empirical difference between the cow you eat and the dog you love. The illogical nature is the assumption, William C., that there is a qualitative difference between the two nonhuman animals, when, as a matter of fact, there isn't. The difference you assume is irrational, by definition.

I would challenge your statement about "eating those you don't love" because I don't believe you would actually eat the flesh of a human animal that you don't love.

However, that isn't the substance of the claim being made in the post. It's not about "love" or "non love." It's about irrationally elevating one nonhuman animal to the status of "moral importance" -- e.g., you dog -- while assuming, without any valid reason, that another is merely property to be exploited for "taste" -- e.g., the pig.

That is quite illogical William C.

Concerning ahimsa, indeed it is a flawed concept due to being unattainable in this world.  Instead there is "natihimsa," meaning minimizing harm (na=not, ati=excessive, himsa=violence).  The principle of natihimsa acknowledges that there is life everywhere, in plants, microbes, etc., and harming them is also 'himsa,' but not as significant as killing animals or people. 

It is for this reason that Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita 3.13, "The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin," and later in verse 9.29 says, "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it."  (http://vedabase.net)

Verse 3.13 acknowledges that even vegetarians, vegans, fruitarians, or even someone living on air or whatever, cause harm simply by living.  (jivo jivasya jivanam - "one living being is food for another.")  Then 9.26 extablishes that only vegetarian foods are suitable for offering in sacrifice.  (Other, more detailed texts such as the Bhagavat-purana, et al., establish that dairy products are recommended as well, but taking milk establishes the cow as a mother, "go-mata," who is not to be killed "aghnya.") 

i'm in agreement with you alex, though i sometimes wonder whether these heavily ethos- and logos-centric appeals are worth the trouble. i know few people who've gone vegan as a result of immersion in anti-speciesist philosophy. no matter how sound the arguments, it's ultimately idealism, which perhaps has little chance of influencing the average person's day-to-day choices. then again, this site is designed for activists, for idealists. and i suppose ethos-based criticism of animal rights is best refuted on its own terms...

anyway, i kinda hate to be so tangential in such a fertile discussion as this, but i've been thinking about intersections of animal rights and cultural/ethnic studies lately, and i can't resist posing this question to y'all: a few people here have mentioned Inuits and other sustenance hunters as rare examples of humans whose flesh consumption is OK. although their bodies could presumably tolerate the transition to a vegan diet, nutritious vegan options are simply not available where they live. they have no choice.

when such individuals need humanitarian aid (or even when they don't), should NGOs offer them foreign, plant-based meals, out of respect for the seals, the gazelles, the jungle fowl? or is this western imperialist bullshit?

There are infinite angles & reasons for chosing vegan or chosing any lifestyle.  It comes down to your own personal code of ethics & your willingness to live by them.

I believe it is wrong to kill other beings therefore I do not eat flesh. 

i believe in compassion therefore I practice compassion.

Whether or not someone else agrees with me will not make me change my personal beliefs.  Live life by what you believe in.

I do not force my beliefs on other people - I find that I am criticized often without provocation.  I come to sites like this to find community, support & likeminded friends.  I am not alone.

Thank you for this blog entry, Stephanie.  Even when animals aren't our pets, we still need to care about them and not support the slaughtering of them. I agree with you that they still have feelings. 

Wow, some of you sure like to type. I'll have to come back later to finish reading! Maybe I'll even get one those nifty little pictures. But here's a couple of thoughts to throw into the fray...
1. Insects: do very many vegans eat them? Where do they fit into the vegan moral ideology? If you eat eggs it is vital that the chickens (or other galliforms whose eggs one consumes) have access to them, as well as sunshine and wild greenery. I'll check my resources to see if they would supply vitamin B12. Some of you may remember from a previous post that I mentioned that there is no non-animal source of B12, a major problem with vegan diets.
2. Pets: Some of you are pictured with your cats and dogs. What do you feed them? Where does it come from? Certainly soy-based pet foods are cruel, and more rainforest is destroyed for soy production than for anything else.
3. Sheep: I recently spent an afternoon banding lamb-tails for docking, which doesn't seem to bother them, and certainly chopping them off instead of banding is painful and risks infection. Would you believe it more or less cruel to let this animal's tail get encrusted with feces and the resultant maggot infestation? (especially bad for ewes)
I'll see what I can come up with when I feel like typing some more.
Cheers.

It seems the threat of censorship is being carried out.
Right when I was responding!
I was going to say:
What I am saying that for a relationship to be considered "ideal" it is not necessary for the exchanged benefit to be in identical-as-possible form, i.e., milk-for-milk in this case, nor for the benefit to be directly exchanged, there can be circuitous benefit.
On a side note, to try and satisfy the milk-for-milk requirement implied, how would one balance human milk, which has 60-70% fat content, with cow's milk, which is about 4% fat? Volume?

ummm i like pigs but i like bakin but i wont eat a dog so yeah idk cuz well ummmmmmmmm ok yeah
Also i feel that animals should be treated with some fairness

Great post!

Awesome Vegan Girl

I love this post. It is so simply, yet powerfully, written. Very well done, absolutely beautiful. You have managed to clearly explain the necessity of veganism and I love it! You can bet I will be showing this and sending this to many, many people! Thank you!