James O’Heare's Personal Notebook on
On Veganism and Animal Rights Advocacy
Cite as: O'Heare, J. (2007).
On Veganism and Animal Rights Advocacy. Retrieved from http://www.jamesoheare.com/advocacy.html on [date].
-------
Chapter 1.
What is a vegan? Why am I a vegan? Why do I believe others should choose for themselves to be vegan? These are the questions I would like to explore both for my own edification to consolidate my thoughts and in order to help others explore the issues as well. It is my hope that I might develop a strong and convincing argument for veganism and influence some people to make the choice to reduce the exploitation and suffering they cause directly and indirectly or if I am preaching to the choir, then I hope I can help arm people with some more effective arguments than is common. Please consider my argument with an open mind.
What is a vegan?
A vegan is a person who seeks to minimize the exploitation of or the causing of suffering and death to others (be they human or otherwise--to all those who can suffer and have an interest in not suffering: sentient beings that is). They do so by failing to support it. This includes not eating sentient beings, wearing them, using them for entertainment or scientific experimentation when they suffer or die as a result.
In a dietary context, vegans do not eat sentient animal products including any form of dead animal flesh or the milk, eggs, cheese and other products that come from sentient animals. Clothing wise, vegans do not wear the hair or skin of animals and some do not wear silk. Entertainment wise, vegans do not contribute to or promote things like racing greyhounds or horses, fighting of roosters or dogs, or the use of wild animals in TV, movies, circuses or other entertainment venues when it is harmful to them. In a research context, vegans are opposed to the harming of animals for scientific research purposes. Note that not all research harms animals. Vegans are only oppsed to research that causes harm to the animals involved.
The main goal of veganism is to minimize the causing of harm and pain or suffering. Note that painless killing is still a "harm" because it results in a loss of opportunity. That has certain consequences which include the above since to consume these "products" is to condone, and contribute profit to those who would cause suffering and death to others.
Vegans are not represented well. We are not extremist freaks or flakes or "crunchy granola" hippy types. We are also not all naive simplistic slogan-spewing fools. It is not about the stereotype (although vested interests in animal use can encourage some people to apply this fallacious ad hominum rhetorical approach). Vegans simply choose not to contribute to the causing of pain, suffering and death that nonvegans do. Simple as that; that's not freaky or extremist. If you find that goal threatening, you might want to examine your values and explore why that is.
Why am I a vegan?
I am a vegan because it is in my own principled self-interest to do so. In other words, I believe it it the moral course of action. It is healthier and ethically sound.
A little about compassion. Compassion has been discussed and defined in this way:
“1. A deep awareness of and sympathy for an other's suffering. 2. The humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it"
http://www.ultralingua.net
Compassionate acts are generally considered those which take into account the suffering of others and attempt to alleviate that suffering as if it were one's own. In this sense, the various forms of the Golden Rule are clearly based on the concept of compassion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion
I feel a strong sense of empathy for those who suffer. I have vowed, in a sense, that I will contribute as little as possible to the causing of suffering in others, any others, be they human or not. That means I will not be a consumer of products that will support and encourage others to cause such suffering. I recognize that my choices do in fact have consequences, regardless of my intentions, and I choose to make choices that do not contribute to the causing of suffering. Simple as that. Note that subjective personal compassion is not the primary reason to be vegan for me. I prefer a reasoned and principled "grounded" justification (see below).
My personal experience: There is a bumper sticker that reads "I can look at you in peace because I don't eat you" with a picture of an adorable cow. I never fully understood that until I stopped eating animal flesh. When people eat animal flesh they carry out subtle subconscious defense mechanisms to help them avoid acknowledging the consequences of their choices. They subtly deny and rationalize and this hinders their ability to enjoying the wonder of other animals. Once I stopped eating animals I found all that guilt that I did not even know was there lifted. I then saw wonderful sentient beings when I looked at cows and other animals. It amazed me. No guilt stood between me and them. No denial. No rationalization. My resolve was strengthened. Once you no longer support the exploitation of animals by the food industry you see these beautiful creatures differently. Guilt, denial and rationalization no longer stand between you and them.
I will explore an objective philisophical argument below by contrast.
Chapter 2.
There are generally five reasons a person may choose to be vegan: ethics; health; environment; world hunger; and religious. I will exclude from consideration here religious reasons as I have zero interest in a religious approach to anything; it is a fundamentally irrational (in the proper sense of the word) world view, a delusion, and I'll have nothing to do with it.
Morality and Ethics
Morality is a code of values that help guide our choices and actions. Ethics by distinction is the science of discovering and defining such a code. Translating the abstract principles of a moral code into action is the role of ethics. There are many theories in moral philosophy, but morality is meant to identify what is right and wrong. I will outline here a subjective argument for animal rights. Following that I will present an objective argument. The objective argument is solid and philosophical, but honestly, it boggles my mind how anyone could not at least be convinced by the subjective argument. People say they don't want to cause others pain and suffering and yet they do. Bizarre incongruous behavior. I do not really favor a subjective moral system, but here is a subjective argument that is intuitively compelling for many.
-----------
James O'Heare
Consider this.
Except in situations of self-defense, one should avoid intentionally causing pain and suffering. Right? Can we agree that it is repugnant and morally wrong? I know I don't like to suffer or experience pain and neither do others. How can someone think it's okay to cause pain and suffering?
How does that relate to non humans? Well, many of them (certainly at least mammals, birds and fish) are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. This is not contentious any longer. They have the same behavioral responses to what we know is painful stimulation and they have similar anatomical and physiological mechanisms to ours that are involved in pain and suffering. They also have the same evolutionary function for pain that we do, to survive and reproduce and avoid that which would lead to death.
Almost all people find it morally wrong to cause pain and suffering and it is no longer avoidable to acknowledge the capability of the animals we use for various purposes to experience pain and suffering. Yet when we eat animals or wear them or force them to provide entertainment or in many instances use them in research we certainly do cause pain and suffering to them. So if you want to be consistent/just and you agree it is morally wrong to cause pain and suffering then you surely have to go where the reasoning takes you and acknowledge that you carry out a moral wrong when you contribute to this causing of pain and suffering. If you want to be moral, you should avoid causing pain and suffering. You have to stop supporting the causing of pain and suffering. Inconvenient? Sure, maybe at first while you are getting used to it, but being moral is far more valuable to your self-esteem than this minor inconvenience.
It is absolutely unnecessary to for you to eat or wear animals or to pay to be entertained by them and we can do without the information we gather from experimenting on them just as we presently do live perfectly well without information we would have gathered if we found it acceptable to experiment on children or homeless people or whatever. If you really do abhor causing pain and suffering then just acknowledge that these practices achieve exactly that and you need to stop doing it. Simple as that. These practices cause pain and suffering and you agree that is wrong so simply avoid it.
Of course in order to accept the reasoning above you have to agree that it is morally wrong to cause pain and suffering. That's why this is a subjective argument. It is not grounded in the sense that it does not argue as to why you should evaluate it is morally wrong to cause pain and suffering, you have to assume it or refer to other arguments to establish that assumption. That is where an objective argument comes in and I'll address that below, but for here, IF you are prepared to make this assumption, then I just cannot see any way around the conclusion.
I do not see how anyone could disagree with this, but certainly someone could. If you agree with it though, then the conclusion is really unavoidable. If you can identify a flaw in my reasoning please do
let me know. This is not a stance I defend against truth. Truth is more important than any stance. I simply go where the reasoning takes me.
Vegans assume the premise that it is wrong to eat, wear or experiment on animals if the animal suffers or dies for it. They accept the premise that animals are not only killed for human consumption but also that they usually live miserable, horrifying, painful short lives prior to being slaughtered. They further accept another premise, that either of these outcomes (suffering or killing) is wrong (See objective argument below). Another premise in this argument states that by being a consumer of products coming from animals is to support (and thereby be a poximate cause of) the inflicting of harm (death and/or suffering) on animals. When you pay for these things, that money goes to keep the person who does directly cause the pain and suffering in business. The conclusion reached by vegans is that if they value the prevention of suffering and/or killing then they must not support such activities; they must not be a consumer of it. That is most basically the subjective moral argument accepted by many vegans. They do not want to support the causing of suffering or death to animals and being a consumer of animal products supports said suffering and death. Therefore, if one wishes to prevent suffering and killing of animals then one must not be a consumer of such products. Of course, as with all deductive arguments, the conclusion is only sound if the premises are true/acceptable. One would have to accept that animals are either killed or caused to suffer in the production of animal consumer products and that being a consumer of animal products supports the actions. Furthermore, in order to make a moral choice, one must place a value on preventing such killing and suffering higher than one's desire to consume such products. If these conditions exist then veganism is the moral course of action.
-----------
Now an objective argument:
-----------
James O’Heare
Whether some nonhuman animals should be extended moral (or legal) rights has been a longstanding polemical issue. Regan (1983, 2003, 2004) has made an intrinsic rights argument and Singer (2002) has made a utilitarian argument to abolish “animal exploitation” but both involve significant questionable assumptions and inferences, related mostly to their philosophical orientation. Francione (2000) has proposed a legal rights argument, which is less problematic than these previous arguments although it focuses on legal rights rather than moral rights. In this essay, I will outline a principled self-interest argument for extending moral rights from all and only humans to all and only sentient (and potentially sentient) beings, including humans and some other beings. First, I will address why we need to consider morality at all. Next, I will discuss what rights are and why they are important. Finally, I will discuss how we should decide whose interests should be protected with rights. I conclude that sentient and potentially sentient beings should be protected by moral (and legal) rights.
The first question is whether we should consider morality at all. Humans must consider morality in order to make accurate and rational judgments regarding what is not just “right” and “wrong,” not as an arbitrary assignment but because right and wrong should correspond to what is “good” and “bad” respectively. Why do we need to determine “good” and “bad”? Choices are not automatic; we must make choices and these choices impact upon our well-being. Normal adult humans are autonomous and discrete individual moral agents (Moral agents are beings who can choose between morally right from morally wrong; they are responsible for their choices because they can choose. Click here and click here for details.), not only capable of making choices that are life sustaining and in their best interest but also acting against their best interest. We are free to choose what we value. This choice makes it necessary to devise a consistent set of principles to help guide our choices. This moral code should be based on our values since we are autonomous. I should note that many philosophers see morality is a social context only, that is, what is right and wrong regarding our behavior toward other social entities. I agree with Rand (1961) that it should encompass more than this, and address the larger class of what is right and wrong in our behavior in general, not just in relation to our behavior toward others. What should we value? Being autonomous individual moral agents, one's most fundamental value should be sustaining one's life and what contributes to one's enjoyment of it because this is foundational to all other values. Something is an objective value to the extent that it serves our best, rational, interest (Rand, 1961). Values are not subjective or intrinsic in this light and this is not to be confused with immediate impulsive gratification and shortsighted selfishness (which is really not in our principled self-interest), but rather our long-term rational self-interest. This does not mean that we treat others with no respect for their interests. It is in our interest to act consistent with principles that respect others’ right to pursue their self-interest and not to harm, coerce or otherwise cause pain and suffering to them (except in self-defense) even if doing so benefits us in some way since we, ourselves, do not wish to be harmed or caused pain and suffering. “Consistency is the minimum requirement of rationality.” (Brute Ethics, n.d.) We have an interest in not being harmed or caused pain and suffering and if we wish to maintain our own principled self-interest then we must agree that it is wrong, consistently, across the board, to harm or cause pain and suffering in those who can experience harm, pain and suffering—for those who have an interest in not being harmed, for those whom, what happens to them, matters to them.
The mechanism by which we protect individual interests not to be harmed or caused pain and suffering, that is, not to be treated as the property of others, is referred to as legal rights? Legal rights are rights that are codified in law. This is as opposed to moral rights, which are rights determined through philosophical argument, but may or may not be codified into law. Unless otherwise specified below, when I refer to rights I am referring to moral rights since this should serve as the basis and justification for legal rights. We have many rights, but a basic right is a right not to be considered a means to someone else’s end, not to be the property of another. What is my duty to others then? If my fundamental value is sustaining my life and interests, then no one has a claim on my life; nor do I have a claim on theirs. My only duty to others whose interests are protected by rights is a "negative duty," a duty not to harm or coerce others (note, positive duties might exist, in a sense, whereby we are morally required to help others, such as when we accept responsibility for a child or a pet, but these are responsibilities we have acted to accept and hence they are really instances of a negative duty; negative duty does not negate accepting responsibility). This does not mean we should not or cannot help others; it just means that there is no moral duty to do so. I respect that others are autonomous and demand others respect that I too am autonomous. You cannot have your cake and eat it too; if you want to be free, you have to accept that others are free. The principles of autonomy, rights and freedom require that we reject the notion that one can demand another individual sacrifice themselves for others because it benefits these or any others.
Consistency is key for the system to work effectively. If we agree it is okay for others to harm and coerce us because they have a need or a want to do so, then it could easily be us that is harmed and coerced at some point, that we may be sacrificed to the needs or wants of others. This is why the principle of rights itself is vitally important, and incidentally why Singer’s (2002) utilitarianism fails. Other criteria for ideal moral judgments include clarity (defining terms and meaning non ambiguously and non vaguely) and empiricism (objectively related to the real world; not based on emotion or faith) (Regan 1993, p.10). But which “others” have these rights?
How shall we treat others (and which others are we talking about)? Who shall this notion of negative duty (rights) apply to? What criteria shall we use to determine who should have rights?
Putatively and intuitively, most of us likely want to include normal adult humans (moral agents), but also children, senile and mentally enfeebled people and those with very low IQ scores. In other words moral patients: sentient beings, but not rising to the level of moral agency; we do not expect these beings to have the unique capabilities of moral agents. Simply, we usually want to include all humans (except perhaps criminals, who have forfeited their rights by the most heinous of crimes such as murder or treason, or in self-defense of those harming/coercing us.).
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for extending rights to a being or class of beings? Self-awareness? That would exclude some people (comatose, mentally enfeebled etc.). Highly intelligent beings? That would exclude some people also (very young children, or mentally enfeebled people) and where to draw the line would be arbitrary. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how level of intelligence is relevant to whether it is right or not to harm or cause pain and suffering with moral impunity. How about all and only humans? This criterion is arbitrary; species membership alone is not morally relevant in the context of the moral implications of harming or causing pain and suffering. What about all and only moral agents? Children are moral patients, as are many senile or mentally enfeebled people? Shall we include those with the potential for moral agency? This is okay for children—what about mentally enfeebled, comatose and senile people? Each of us could become mentally enfeebled, senile or comatose and so it is in our interest to extend rights to moral patients (since we could become one). What criteria allow us to assign moral rights to that which we are or could become? Sentience, that is, those who can experience pain and have an interest in avoiding it? This includes moral agents, all of whom are sentient. It also includes sentient moral patients. Some humans (e.g., comatose) lack sentience but may, at some point, regain it. We wish to extend moral rights to them. What criteria allow us to nonarbitrarily and impartially include both normal adults humans, children, enfeebled people and comatose people for whom recovery can be anticipated? How about sentience and potential for sentience, which would exclude trees and stones etc. yet include sentient beings and beings who for one reason or another presently do not have sentience but we have an expectation that they may gain it? This may cast a wide net but it errs on the side of moral caution. This would include fetuses, which is controversial. Some would argue that the mother's basic rights trump the fetuses right since the fetus's existence harms the mother (if that is her evaluation) in a sense and is justified as self-defense. Others would argue that where someone chooses to act, where it is reasonable to anticipate pregnancy, they have accepted a positive duty to the child. But that debate is beyond the scope of this essay. This is just to say that that issue is not necessarily infered by my argument one way or the other.
What is required is a clear, empirically based, rational, nonarbitrary moral code to determine whom it is in our principled self-interest to extend moral rights to. We agree it should include normal adult humans (moral agents) as well as children, enfeebled and senile people (moral patients) and those who for whatever reason may not presently be sentient (comatose) but recovered sentient state is anticipated (potentially sentient). We also agree that trees and rocks should not be extended moral rights. What nonarbitrary, consistent, just, rational criteria allow us to include these beings and exclude trees and rocks? The only suitable necessary and sufficient conditions I can derive are: sentient and potentially sentient beings, beings that have interests, for whom what happens to them matters to them. In morally relevant ways, nonhuman animals are like severely retarded people or young children; they are moral patients. We cannot extend rights to these humans, and nonarbitrarily, fail to extend them to sentient nonhuman animals. An arbitrary distinction is no basis for a rational moral code. Simply being a member of a particular species is not morally relevant because it is arbitrary. It is speciesism and just as we agree that sexism and racism are morally wrong, so too must we, by analogy, agree that speciesism is morally wrong (Dunayer, 2004; Lau & Chan, n.d.). Justice and rational consistency dictate that we treat similar cases similarly.
In that context, we should extend rights to those who are similar in relevant ways. Are there morally relevant differences between some humans whom we would intuitively say should have rights (such as severely retarded or senile humans) and some nonhumans (e.g., mammals, birds and fish at least)? What is morally relevant when it comes to whether it is right or wrong to cause harm or pain and suffering? Certainly being able to experience said pain and suffering (i.e., sentience), for whom what happens to them matters to them, seems relevant? They have an interest in not suffering, unlike trees and stones, which seem to have no such interest. Level of intelligence, species membership and self-awareness beyond that required to allow a being to experience pain and suffering are common retorts but no one has been able to demonstrate how these are directly relevant.
I have argued that it is objectively morally wrong to cause harm or pain and suffering to those who are sentient (or potentially sentient), for whom what happens to them matters to them, except in self-defense. I argue this based on the principles that it is in each of our principled self-interest to observe negative duty rights consistently and nonarbitrarily with regards to those with this capacity. This includes humans, but justly has to then also include many nonhuman animals such as mammals, birds and fish at least, because in morally relevant ways, they are similar and justice demands treating similar cases similarly in our moral choices.
Brute Ethics. (n.d.). Moral autonomy. Retrieved June 22, 2007 fromhttp://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/analogy.php.
Dunayer, J. (2004). Speciesism. Derwood: Ryce Publishing.
Francione, G. L. (2000). Introduction to Animal Rights Your Child or the Dog. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lau, J., & Chan, J. (n.d.). Analogies in Morality. Retrieved June 22, 2007 fromhttp://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/analogy.php.
Rand, A. (1961). The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New York: The New American Library Inc.
Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Regan, T. (2003). Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Regan, T. (2004). Empty Cages Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights. Toronto: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
-----------
Want to learn more? Here is a good introduction to the topic:
This is meant as a companion to the more popular:
Those are good first books to read on the topic. Want to get deeper? This is the next read:
It is a much more advanced book on the topic. I disagree with Regan that there is such thing as intrinsic rights or that we owe a positive duty obligation to anyone other than when we accept that duty. Still, he presents some very interesting arguments and things to consider.
My favorite book at present is:
Health
Animal based diets are associated with cancer, heart disease and other leading diseases, which cause death. Vegans are healthier, in better condition and live longer than nonvegans. The vegan diet used to be thought risky but this was based more on fear of the unknown (and vested interests) than research or on researching populations of vegans that failed to take simple precautions to balance their diet effectively (people eating the best vegan diet are more healthy than people eating the best nonvegan diet). This fear has all changed and the world’s health and nutrition organizations now recognize the health benefits of a plant based diet and the dangers of an animal based diet. Want to be healthier and live longer? Adopt a vegan diet. For more information on this including the scientific evidence to support it I direct you to three sources as a good place to start:
Looking for just a simple "diet" book?
“The vast majority of major health organizations in the Western world now recognize this link and promote a plant-based diet as optimal for health. In June of 1999, five of the top health organizations in the U.S. jointly endorsed a nutritious eating plan meant to help stave off the diseases that kill most people--heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes. The Unified Dietary Guidelines were released by the American Cancer Society, the American Dietetic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association.” (Davis and Melina, 2000)
Check out the official U.S. Dietary Guidelines at:
Check out the joint Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada at:
Also this article:
Many associations do not come right out and suggest eliminating animal flesh and derivative products completely because they know most people would not do so. They compromise by suggesting limitations on these products in the hopes people will limit them as much as possible. The ideal is to limit them to zero. These compromises legitimize the use of flesh as a possibly healthy component of one's diet when this is not true.
From the American Heart Association:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777
Some links from the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine:
http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/index.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/index.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancerproject/index.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/clinres/index.html
Yeah I tried that but...
People sometimes tell me that they tried being a vegetarian or vegan but they did not feel well, having less energy being the most common complaint. I ask what they were eating and the answer invariably is primarily refined carbohydrates and simple sugars including highly processed foods. Although vegans are healthier overall, even vegans can eat a poor diet. They still avoid the health problems associated with flesh and dairy but if the diet focusses on refined carbohydrates then they may indeed experience health problems (such as fluctuations in energy level). A healthy diet is not even about being vegan per se. A healthy diet is one that focusses on complex carbohydrate sources including whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes. Others fear carbohydrates because they believe that they will cause excess body fat. Excess refined simple carbohydrates may indeed contribute to weight problems. Vegans and nonvegans alike should be avoiding these refined and processed empty calories and focus on fresh, whole ingredients. It is a logical fallacy to blame veganism for these reported poor results. It is not the avoidance of animal flesh, fat and dairy that causes the problem but rather the poor diet choices these newbies make. A varied diet based on complex carbohydrates (whole grains, fruit, vegetables and legumes) and moderate healthy protein and fat sources should produce abundant energy and a lean healthy body (
http://www.pcrm.org/news/release_060403.html).
For more information on the most healthy diet guidelines available see the New Four Food Groups at:
Environmentalism
The use of animals in agriculture leads to extensive deterioration of the environment through clear cutting, farm animal waste contamination of the waterways etc. An environment based on a plant based diet would be much more sustainable. A good book on this topic is:
Animals fed on grain, and also those which rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm. According to the United States Department of Agriculture|USDA growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United State’s water supply and 80 percent of it’s agricultural land. As well animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90 percent of the soy crop, 80 percent of the corn crop, and a total of 70 percent of it’s grain. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb973/sb973.pdf. In tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. [http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html] The result is that producing animal based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits." (http://gknowledge.org/doku.php/green/food/diet/vegetarian)
http://www.ibiblio.org/bwb/veg/environment.shtml
"Farming" nonhuman animals for food drains off 60% of our continent's fresh water supply. A vegan causes 300 gallons of fresh water per day to be consumed, whereas a nonvegan causes 6,000 gallons to be consumed per day. Massive (and unsustainable) proportions of the world's rain forests and along with it that proportion of biological diversity and oxygen-producing plant life is cleared for maintaining animals destined for food. The raising and processing of 1 calorie of animal flesh requires 20 calories of energy. To produce plant based foods, for every calorie we put in we get 60 calories of food back. Using animals for food is highly inefficient and totally unsustainable. The vast majority of plant food grown go to feed "farmed" animals. If this middle-man conversion was eliminated food production would become highly efficient and sustainable. Our planet's topsoil is being depleted at an alarming rate and much of this is due to "animal agriculture". Eventually, due to using animals as food, the planet will undergo what is called desertification and it will no longer support life. Much of these details comes from The Vegan Diet as Chronic Disease Prevention by Kerrie K. Saunders, chapter eight.
Word Hunger
It takes an incredible amount of plant food to feed animals and produce a very small amount of animal flesh (see above). Far more food would be available for the world’s population if energy was put into producing plant-based foods rather than highly inefficient flesh foods. Want to do your part to stop world hunger and poverty? Go vegan.
“if Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10 % for one year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption. That is enough to feed 60 million people. If Americans stopped eating grain-fed beef altogether, the whole population of India could be fed.” (
http://www.vssj.com/world-hunger.html)
According to the WorldWatch Institute “Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off of rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world’s chronically hungry.”
https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1998/07/02
An article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,865087,00.html
Why do I believe that others should be vegan?
I believe that it is morally wrong to cause suffering and death (except in situations of self-defense). A philosopher wrote "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others," and the “Golden Rule” we are all familiar with states "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". I am not a religious person by the way; this is a principle of justice. The principle is what is important. If we wish not to be harmed then it is only just that we make it a principle based on consistency that we will not harm others. In
Game Theory this system would make those who avoid harming others 'cooperators' and those that harm others 'defectors' (or 'cheaters'). The system works in equilibrium with as little harm as possible only if we generally accept the principle of the golden rule. I believe others should agree with me that causing suffering and death is morally repugnant and that justice dictates that we extend the rights not to be harmed (suffering, loss and death) to anyone who can suffer. I believe that we owe what is called a 'negative moral duty' to those that can suffer. A negative duty means that those who can suffer should be left alone; we should not cause them to suffer or die. I do not agree with Tom Regan (1983) that we owe any others a positive duty, that we are morally obligated to actively defend others. Rather, it is my stance that those who suffer should have the moral right to be left alone. It is a simple principle: I do not want others to cause me to suffer or die and so to be consistent and just I will not cause others to suffer or die. Furthermore, I argue that others should also choose to accept this principle because it is only just. It is in everyone's rational self interest to extend rights to others who are sentient and for whom what happens to them matters to them.
And so I do not believe that morality is subjective and that while it is morally wrong for me to cause others to suffer and die it should be fine for others to do so. I believe that others should also choose to adhere to this principle of justice and while taking advantage of the benefits of rights, also extending them to others (any other who are capable of suffering) because it is in their best interest to have a consistent, rational and just moral code.
I read an article a while back in which the author was explaining how it was his experience that every time he had a discussion with an animal rights advocate that they seemed too insistent in their views. I believe he said we generally came off as "arrogant and self-righteous". This is a real problem and I have mixed views on it. The self-righteous thing turns people off and encourages people to dismiss not only that person but also the argument as a whole (a logical fallacy yes, but they do it). On the other hand, we are not talking about the difference between painting a house blue or green here; we are talking about the stopping of massive scale suffering and killing. It is desperate and urgent and our compromise may legitimize the problem. If most of society believed killing retarded people was acceptable and a self-righteous minority was insistent about this being wrong, don't you think that they should speak up? Should they try to just get along and avoid coming off "arrogant?" They should speak up. Animal rights advocates are speaking up about something urgent and serious. The arguments must be made even if it makes some people feel uncomfortable or defensive. And some people believe that dismissing us as arrogant is an effective means of countering our arguments, even though this is fallacious. On the other hand, the message must get through and arrogance and self-righteousness may not be the best way to get these arguments out and convince people. My suggestion is to find a balance between, on the one side speaking up, standing strong, and not shying away from making the arguments that must be made, and on the other side, avoiding excess arrogance and self-righteousness. Do I think I'm right? Yes, so what? Of course I do. If I didn't I would not be presenting my opinion and argument here and in fact I would be off having some other opinion then. Animal rights advocates need to make effective arguments and being dismissed because of attitude is a barrier to that. Of course some people will see arrogance and self-righteousness in us as part of their own self-defense mechanism that will allow them to more easily dismiss the arguments being made. That cannot be our responsibility. So I suggest we stand strong but do so reasonably and nicely. Avoid the unnecessary rhetoric; make effective persuasive arguments that do not insult unnecessarily.
I am not forcing my opinions on anyone here. I am presenting what I consider to be a reasoned argument and you can consider it or not. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I would strongly urge people to abstain from doing something: contributing to all that suffering and destruction of our environment. Does my strong opinion make me arrogant and self-righteous? If so I won’t apologize.
Other Issues and Some Details
People sometimes argue that we are not herbivores and other animals eat animals so we should too. This argument contains two fallacies that need addressing. First the implication is that our biology requires animal flesh nutrient food sources. This is incorrect. Vegetarian and vegan lifestyles can be perfectly healthy, and in fact, overall they are far more healthy than the carcinogenic and cholesterol laden flesh products nonvegans eat (see figure 1 above). Another implication is that because other animals eat other animals it is natural and hence okay for us to do so also. Other animals do not appear to have the kind of consciousness that would allow them to make a reasoned ethical choice not to cause suffering. They are what in philosophy they call "
moral patients". We, on the other hand are "moral agents". We have the option to choose what we will do based on reasoned consideration. No other animal is (seemingly) capable of forming the arguments you see me forming here for example. For humans, the choice to support suffering and eat flesh is just that--a choice. It is an ethical decision one makes. Someone once told me (in response to that assertion) that their “eating meat [sic] is not an ethical decision for me”. I argue that behavior has consequences independent of whether they consider it an ethical choice or not. The consequence is the torture and killing of other animals so that they can consume that 'product'. So you can deny it involves an ethical decision if you want but that does not change the fact that your choice does have consequences. Choices have consequences independent of our intentions. Eating flesh supports the animal product industry to cause the suffering and killing of animals. Our choice to eat flesh, regardless of our intentions, supports the causing of suffering. I believe that is morally wrong. Where do you stand on that? If you eat flesh you are not only less likely to be as healthy as you could be but you support the causing of suffering and death. Avoiding thinking about it or failing to look further into it does not relieve you of the fact that this is a choice and you either support suffering or not by your choice. I'll grant of course that if someone truly does not know that something they do causes an outcome that they would consider 'wrong' then that cannot really be considered immoral or unethical. But, how can someone not appreciate that a steak is made from a cow that was killed? Most people do not know the extensive suffering caused by the animal-as-food industry but surely they know these products are not built in factories, they are made from killed animals. And as I mentioned, avoiding thinking further about it certainly does not alleviate responsibility for someone to avoid doing what they should consider unethical. If a rapist fails to consider the consequences of his behavior or simply avoids worrying about how it might affect those he rapes, we do not consider this less wrong than if he did. His behavior has consequences that affect others. Others suffer and it is wrong regardless of his avoidance of considering those consequences.
At this web site below there is a video that will show you the kind of suffering that takes place behind the scenes. It boggles the mind how someone can see this and then choose to continue to support it by not going vegetarian or vegan. Watch the video and tell others about it:
http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp
Becoming a vegetarian or vegan is actually much easier than most people think it's going to be. The first couple weeks are an adjustment as people learn to work around the restrictions but once you settle into it, the self-esteem created by your integrity to your values drives you and you begin to build your repertoire of dishes you can make and restaurants you can visit. I found I ate a lot better once I gave up animal products and by-products (more varied, not more restricted). I used to eat the same things all the time and it was boring (and unhealthy). Now I have been invigorated by the many healthy and fun choices available. I have learned how to make meals more varied and fun. And of course my moral victory makes me feel great psychologically. As described in more detail above, some people go vegan for a couple weeks and then switch back claiming they feel less energy. They say that it does not agree with their system and they "need" meat to feel good. Bull! This does not mean that the vegan diet was bad for them. It likely means they needed to make some adjustments to their diet. Chances are they were just not eating a balanced and varied diet. They just need to improve their diet a bit. It is a logical fallacy to blame the vegan diet for one's choice to eat refined carbohydrates and empty calories.
The below links will help you get started:
Vegetarian Starter Kit
http://www.vegetarianstarterkit.com/
Vegan Starter Kits
http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/vegan_starter_kit_campaign.asp
I also don't wear any animal products. No leather shoes or belts or watch bands, nothing like that. You can get great shoes that are not made of animals. Check out these web sites and you'll see what I mean:
http://www.mooshoes.com/
http://www.veganstore.com/
http://www.veganessentials.com/
Activism
Hey, sometimes you have to stand up and argue for injustices and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Some people prefer gimmicks and some prefer reasoned argumentation. I prefer the latter. The point is that it's fine and dandy to have beliefs but I choose to stand strong and speak out against the inhumane treatment of other animal species.
A wonderful place I support is
Farm Sanctuary! I love these people and the good they do. They are not as gimmicky as some other better known organizations and they work tirelessly not just to provide rescue to farm animals but to raise awareness through video footage of what goes on behind closed doors in the animal-use industry. I heard a quote once (I think it was from James Cromwell) that went something like this: If slaughter houses had glass walls we'd all be vegans. So true.
Animal rights is not about PETA or other gimmicky organizations and it's not about the stereotypes. It's about the perspective that it is not right to cause harm, death and suffering. Please just consider that argument carefully.
Some other Resources
http://www.pcrm.org/
http://www.animalconcerns.org/
http://www.animal-rights.com/
http://www.vegepets.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan
On the nutrition side, there are some great books, some good books and some not so good books. Here are some great places to start if you want to really get into the details of the benefits of a vegan diet:
Also:
http://www.goveg.com/
http://vegweb.com/
http://www.veganchef.com/
http://www.vrg.org
http://www.vegsource.com/
http://www.veganrecipes.com/
http://www.vegsoc.org/cordonvert/recipes/
http://www.veganfamily.co.uk/kitchen.html
http://www.veganmeat.com/recipie.html
http://www.veganmania.com/
A couple other good sources of information:
Final Notes
Thank you for reading this page. Remember: Your choices have consequences. Are you okay with the consequences of your behavior? Do you have integrity? Stand strong!
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
James O'Heare, Vegan and Animal Rights Advocate
Vegetarian and Vegan Nutrition Certificate
Chapter 4.
And on speciesist language...
James O’Heare
Most people experience empathy and demonstrate compassion for those (humans) who suffer, but most people also believe it is morally acceptable to cause nonhuman animals to suffer and die by the billions each year for human purposes. Most humans have vested interests in maintaining this discrepancy. Deceptive rhetorical devices reflect and maintain this belief system. Euphemism, false definition and semantic reversal obfuscate the contradiction and hence recognition of a need to resolve it. I will analyze this manipulation of language, examining the motivation for it, effects it has on belief systems and offering examples of such prevarication. I argue that speciesist rhetorical devices are deep-seated and pervasive in the English language and that they tend to allow for deception, which allows people to speciously justify or avoid consideration of the suffering and death they cause.
Cavalieri (2001, p.70) defines speciesism simply as a term “used to describe any form of discrimination based on species.” Others (Singer, 1975; Regan, 1983, Dunayer, 2004, Soanes, and Stevenson, 2005) claim that speciesism involves preferred consideration for humans but here are circumstances where other “preferred” species are included and so these definitions are not satisfactory. I will define speciesism as any form of unjust discrimination based solely on species membership. In recent years, we have come to appreciate that unjust discrimination is morally objectionable. Just as most people now consider racism and sexism morally repugnant, so too should we consider speciesism morally repugnant, as they each involve the same fundamental unjust discrimination. It is beyond the scope of this essay to establish the moral repugnancy of speciesism and the violation of the moral rights of nonhuman animals, but this brief argument sets the stage for understanding the relationship between speciesism and language use.
In the most prominent work to date on the topic of speciesism and language, Dunayer (2001) addressed the motivation for and effect of such practices.
“How do we justify our treatment of nonhumans? We lie—to ourselves and to each other, about our species and about others. Deceptive language perpetuates speciesism, …. Like sexism and racism, speciesism is a form of self-aggrandizing prejudice. Bigotry requires self-deception. … Words have political effect. They can foster oppression or liberation, prejudice or respect. … [S]peciesist language denigrates or discounts nonhumans; it legitimizes their abuse.”
Dunayer (2001) argues that deceptive language is a primary means of maintaining speciesism. Mills (2001) point out “few in the antidiscriminatory language arena would assume that language plays such a major role and that such language always involves conscious deception and falsification.” More broadly acceptable is that deceptive rhetorical devices contribute to maintaining speciesist attitudes just as and to the extent that sexist and racist language contributes to the maintenance of sexist and racist attitudes.
Perhaps the most fundamental example of speciesist language is a false distinction between human animals and nonhuman animals as humans and animals, as if humans were not animals. Another common example is the differential use of the relative pronoun “who” versus “which” and “that.” Similarly, the use of “it” rather than “he,” or “she” achieved the same goal. Using the words “that,” “which” and “it” rather than “who,” “he” and “she” subtly reduces all nonhuman animals to things rather than sentient beings and conceals their individuality; it encourages us to see them as mere tools for our use. Gilquin and Jacobs (2006) found that some official language sources allow “who” for nonhuman animals while many do not; newspaper style guides generally allow “who” whereas publication manuals do not. It is also common practice to put quotation marks around nonhuman animal personal names in the few instances that people use personal names for nonhuman animals. People use quotation marks for any other word that refers to an individual nonhuman animal’s thoughts or feelings even though a preponderance of the scientific literature suggest nonhuman sentient animals have rich and complex mental experiences.
Distinct lexicons for humans and nonhumans, and sterile or “nonanthropomorphic” language help to maintain an “us and them” attitude. Humans have “personality” whereas nonhuman animals have “temperament.” “Motherly love” in humans is “maternal instinct” in nonhumans. Humans experience “making love” while nonhumans “mate.” Humans “love” while nonhumans “bond.” Humans have “friendships” while nonhumans perform “affiliative behaviors.” When humans act with “unfeeling cruelty” we refer to them as “brutish” or as “animals,” implying this is a nonhuman animal attribute when in fact, humans are the gratuitously violent species. Compassion is referred to as “human kindness” to imply kindness is a characteristic specific to humans. Likewise, “humane” means to be kind, whereas “inhumane” means to be cruel (Dunayer, 2001).
Hunters refer to what they do as a “sport” concealing its violence. Hunters argue that the animal rights advocate’s use of the term “murder” is moralistic and emotion-laden although making killing moralistic is probably appropriate given that this “sport” involves killing sentient beings. On the other hand, “murder” is a legal term, and applies, at least at present and in North America, only to humans; the term kill is clearer. Hunters use the terms “wildlife refuge” and “wildlife preserve” not to describe a refuge that preserves lives but rather as controlled hunting grounds that preserves a stable number of animals to kill. Hunters refer to “harvesting” nonhuman animals as if they were crops. Hunters call themselves “sportsmen” or “outdoorsmen” rather than violent killers, which is actually a more accurate description albeit “moralistic.” (Dunayer, 2001)
Zoo staff refers to cages as “habitats” or “homes,” and captive individuals as “residents,” “ambassadors for their species,” “exhibits” or “specimen.” They use museum terminology (such as referring to captives as a “collection”) to support the attitude that they are things or a group rather than individual sentient beings. Zoos now prefer the term “wildlife center,” prefer “holding” or “keeping” instead of imprison, and captors are referred to as “keepers” or “caretakers.” Violent subjugation is called “training,” and they market themselves as “educational” or “conservation” centers, when in fact visitors are not educated and individuals are not conserved. Zoos also attempt to justify imprisoning their captives on the grounds that they do research but most of the “research” is on how to keep these individuals captive, a problem that would not require research if they did not trap and “keep” them to begin with (Dunayer, 2001).
Rather than capture, “aquariums” prefer to say they “collect” or “acquire” the “specimens” or “residents.” Just as in zoos, “aquariums” go to great lengths to “educate” their staff on avoiding all unequivocal terminology and replace them with euphemisms and semantic reversals. They avoid the word entertainment and instead staff are directed to use the word ‘educational;” they are not performances but rather “demonstrations” (Dunayer, 2001).
Researchers cast animal rights advocates as “anti-science” and portray their own position as “pro-science.” This is a false distinction since animal rights advocates are pro-science but opposed to the harmful use of animals in the name of science. Researchers claim that the research carried out on nonhuman animals causes “minor discomfort” when in fact death, deprivation and extreme pain are the norm. Animals are “fasted” on a “restricted diet” rather than starved and “thermally injured” rather than scalded. Animals left alive after experiments are “sacrificed” or “put to sleep” rather than killed. Rather than disfigured, animals are “modified.” (Dunayer, 2001)
Painful farming practices such as debeaking, toe nail removal, dehorning, castration are all carried out without anesthetic while farmers call these “mildly discomforting,” an extreme understatement. Farmers call slaughterhouses “meat factories” as if they manufacture the meat as they would a clock radio; they “process” rather than kill the animals. One spokesperson for the fishing industry advises calling fish slaughter “harvesting” in order to keep the public “happy.” (Dunayer, 2001)
Many industries and individuals have vested interests in maintaining the attitude that animals are not deserving of moral consideration and the disconnect between self-evaluated human compassion on the one hand and the causing of widespread suffering and death to nonhuman animals on the other hand creates the conditions for deception. Deception by obfuscation and prevarication is achieved through various deceptive rhetorical devices that are pervasive throughout English speaking society. Each major nonhuman animal use industry utilizes their own application of this practice but each share the common feature of encouraging us to think of nonhuman animals as things for our use rather than as sentient individual beings deserving of moral consideration. I anticipate the retort that animal rights advocates also obfuscate with language to further their “radical” agendas. In some cases, this is true although it pales in comparison to the entrenched prevarication used by the rest of society and the distinction that one side argues for protecting from suffering while the other side causes the suffering. Language is a weapon in the war waged by people, institutions and society against facing this reality.
References
Blackwell, S. (2002). Linguists and other animals. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(4), 589-597.
Cavalieri, P. (2004). The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dunayer, J. (2001). Animal Equality Language and Liberation. Derwood: Ryce Publishing.
Dunayer, J. (2004). Speciesism. Derwood: Ryce Publishing.
Gilquin, G., & Jacobs, G. M. (2006). Elephants who marry mice are very unusual: The use of the relative pronoun who with nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 14(1), 79-105.
Mills, S. (2002). Animal equality: Language and liberation (review). Language, 78(3), 581-583.
Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (Eds.). (2005). Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd. Revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.