Wow
Thank you all very much for your contributions. I would never have expected such resonance.
Unfortunately, there are so many replies raising so many different points and aspects that I couldn?t possibly reply to all of them individually. I have, however, read them and tried to roughly group them thematically into the following statements:
Animals are inherently inferior to us and therefore not entitled to the same moral consideration as our fellow human beings.
I have to say that I have difficulty in seeing the general benefit of dividing the world into superior and inferior. This is of course a paradigm that we?re very familiar with throughout history: We have often brutally subjugated and exploited one another by claiming that one particular group of humans is superior to others. Personally, I think notions of supremacy are always a means to an end: We mark others as inferior because we gain something from dominating them. This gain can be material, as with animal products, or purely psychological, in that looking down on other groups or species makes us feel better about ourselves.
Today, we have evolved to a point where most of us view all forms of discrimination towards other human beings as reprehensible. This to me is proof that our morality is indeed advancing and that we are not doomed to be forever mired in our supposedly ?natural? destructive selfishness. To now extend this progressed empathy beyond the species barrier, to all beings who are able to value their own lives, fight for their survival and feel love, grief and pain, is to me a logical conclusion of this process.
Someone said animals don?t have a right to either life and liberty. Neither do humans, at least not naturally. Human rights is something we invented for ourselves, because we desire to minimise our own suffering and that of our fellow human beings. Why? Because we don?t like suffering. It?s a privilege that we freely grant to each other, for the greater good, even though we certainly don?t have to. It makes sense to extend this right to animals, because what drives us to act morally toward one another is not simply the recognition that we?re of the same species, but the recognition that we can both suffer and that suffering should be avoided.
Humans have managed to become the dominant species on Earth and are therefore justified in subjugating other species at their discretion.
It?s true that we are dominant. No other species has had and is having such a tremendous impact on the planet. But if we look at climate change, poverty, war, avoidable diseases, economic crises, the extinction of species and all other forms of injustice, I don?t think we deserve a pat on the back for how we have made use of our dominance. Of course human beings have also made many positive achievements, in arts, science, philosophy and morality, but by and large our presence on this planet has been very destructive, to the extent that we are currently struggling to ensure our own survival. Or rather, we are struggling to wake up to the fact that we need to make some drastic changes in order to ensure our survival.
I think that these considerations should lead us to question our claim to total superiority. I think that we should adopt a more humble outlook on this planet, which we share with an immeasurable wealth of other species, and work out a way for us to co-exist with them in a sustainable and non-violent way.
The animals we eat are purpose-bred to be killed anyway, so if we stopped eating them, they wouldn?t exist.
I don?t think this holds up as an argument. Yes, we have domesticated cows, pigs and chickens to the extent that they are now entirely dependent on us, entirely at our mercy. Through eugenics, we have remodeled them to boost attributes that are beneficial to us (weight, milk capacity), which has gone so far that a factory-farmed chicken now grows to many times her natural size, which causes her bones to snap under her own weight. In short, we have created billions of ?Frankenstein? animals for the sole purpose of serving us as ?meat machines?. I don?t think the consideration that they wouldn?t exist without us exploiting them is a sufficient justification, because the one ability that we seem unable to breed out of animals is the ability to feel: Love, grief, pain, the desire to be free.
And yes, if we released all cows, pigs and chickens into the wild, they would quickly be set upon by predators and killed, which would also have a significant ecological impact (not sure if they would simply die out though... there aren?t enough predators to slay all current livestock, so I presume a considerable population of these animals would survive and eventually re-evolve into their feral ancestors). But that?s beside the point. The point is that I believe we are not morally justified in breeding, imprisoning and killing animals for food in the first place.
I think when we create life for the sole purpose of exploiting it for our pleasure, it?s not ethical for us to do so.
Organic/free range animals enjoy a good life, which makes it ethically unproblematic to kill and eat them.
The same reasoning as above applies here: No matter how good the animal?s life has been, he or she is still going to be killed in the prime of his or her life, which is violence just as needless as is the case with a factory-farmed animal. I personally don?t believe in the notion of ?humane? slaughter. Whether a killing is humane depends not only on the technique, but more importantly on the motivation.
Veganism is unhealthy:
This would require a whole separate thread. In a nutshell, it depends.
A vegan diet, if planned poorly, can result in various nutrient deficiencies, such as Protein, Iron or Vitamin B12. Many people turn vegan without doing their homework and end up eating a very one-sided diet that does not contain foods rich in vital nutrients. However, this is just as true of a poorly planned meat-based diet, as is very evident in the Standard American Diet, which through its overemphasis on meat and dairy has led to endemic obesity and heart disease, among others.
The bottom line is, no matter what you eat, you should think about whether you?re getting all you need.
Protein can be easily obtained from many non-animal foods, it?s in pasta, bread, nuts, broccoli, what have you. Iron is found in all leafy greens, especially kale and spinach, but also in all kinds of beans. Vitamin B12 is the only truly tricky part, as this nutrient does not occur naturally in either animal or plant products. B12 is generated through bacteria, which animals ingest and cultivate when they feed. Because we humans clean our food too well, we exterminate these bacteria and therefore can only obtain B12 ?second-hand? by eating either animal products or taking supplements.
All good soy milk brands are fortified with B12 to balance this out. Additionally, a vegan can take a multivitamin for an added boost. Supplementation or fortification with nutrients is nothing special. Most milks are artificially fortified with Vitamin D, we enhance our food with additives all the time. Of course, when half your diet consists of pills, you should start to worry. This is however not the case for a properly planned vegan diet.
I?ve been vegan for a year, after being vegetarian for four years, and just went for a health check-up and blood test. I?m perfectly healthy and lacking in nothing. As for the theory that some individuals might require animal products while others don?t, I?m honestly not sure. I?ve never heard of nutritional requirements diverging so massively within the same species. I acknowledge and respect some people's accounts though who have tried veganism and couldn't cope with it.
I think tastes can be cultivated and not necessarily every craving our body has is for something that?s good for us (consider sweets or drugs).
Interestingly, there are quite a few vegans and vegetarians who couldn?t care less about animal rights, but switch their diets purely for health reasons.
Human rights should always come before animal rights:
Absolutely, I agree. But only when they are mutually exclusive, which they often aren?t. Quite the contrary, if we?re concerned with not just ending human suffering, but ending all suffering, we can take a comprehensive approach that benefits both humans and animals, to the detriment of neither. Just like we can abstain from animal products, we can choose not to buy products from companies that exploit their workforce or pollute the environment. Consider how quickly Apple would change the inhuman regime imposed on their Chinese manufacturers, if only 20 per cent of their customers demanded it and stopped buying their products until their demand was met. Unfortunately, here too the power that we hold is stilted by our fatalism, the conviction that we can?t stop global injustice anyway, so why bother. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Companies need us to give them money, governments need us to validate them. If each and every person started making ethical purchases, things would change very, very fast.
I think we should stop hiding behind cynicism and start exploring the powers we have.
I would never argue that animals are more important than humans. Personally, I just don?t really think in terms of what being is more or less important, unless I?m actually in a situation where someone holds a gun to my head and forces me to choose.
If you?re vegan out of respect for life, this should extend to ALL life, including fish, insects, plants, even bacteria.
Absolutely. I think we should respect all forms of life, wherever we encounter them, to whatever extent is possible and within reason. Why squish bugs and spiders? It?s not their fault they freak us out. We can scoop them up and toss them outside. Sure, they might be killed there by another predatory animal... but we don?t need to take their lives, we can give them a second chance, we have it within our power to show mercy, and I think we should use that power whenever we can. We shouldn?t stomp on flowers either... why destroy life that by rights we should celebrate?
Don?t get me wrong, I?m not saying we should sacrifice our own safety for the sake of lofty ideals. If I see a tiger charging my way and I have a shotgun handy, you can be sure I?ll blast the *****.
Veganism is hypocritical because there is no way you could completely cut out all animal products or by-products from modern life.
This is the ?all or nothing? stance. Essentially, the suggestion here is that if we cannot behave 100 per cent ethically in every single aspect of our lives, we shouldn?t try to live ethically at all. I don?t agree, and I think neither do most people. For example, few people would argue that we should stop trying to prevent wars just because we can never make completely sure that wars will never happen. Of course nobody can become a complete saint, but I think we should try to be as good as we can.
That of course doesn?t mean that you don?t have every right to be pissed off if a vegan claims to be completely morally pure and decides to look down on you just because he?s made one or two ethical choices in one aspect of their lives. Again, I don?t look down on anyone. I might be more ethical than meat-eaters in terms of my diet, but there are probably many meat-eaters who are much more ethical than me in many other respects. I?m a flawed human being just like the next person. Morality without humility isn't worth much.
Morality is subjective. Some are okay with killing, others aren?t. Each to their own.
I disagree strongly. When it comes to the bare basics of how human beings ought to live, there is one fundamental similarity across all world cultures, which is that needless violence is always problematic. No society simply allows wanton, arbitrary violence. The question is of course who gets to define when violence is needless and when there is a need. In Western societies, forms of violence that are considered acceptable include the killing of animals for food, the imprisonment of criminals or restrictions on children. I think in each case we are quite acutely aware that we negatively influence another life through violence in one way or another, and therefore we need to justify our actions accordingly: We can?t just let our children roam free, because they haven?t yet grown up to act responsibly in this world and might get run over by a car. We can?t just let the criminal off the hook, because he might commit crime again, and safeguarding the wider population outweighs his right to liberty. But with animals... what would we stand to lose if we stopped exploiting them? Granted, we would sacrifice a dietary choice and therefore lose out in terms of convenience, but does this justification satisfy the threshold we place on those other instances of violence? We don?t violently restrict the child or the criminal out of convenience, we violently restrict them because failing to do so would cause even more violence. And that?s what I see as the basic gist of all human morality: Violence is bad. We shouldn?t use it without a good reason.
Another simple maxim that sums this up would: We should live in such a way that we cause as little violence to other beings as we can.
Eating meat is a personal choice and vegans/vegetarians/animal rights activists should not attempt to ?evangelize? others.
I understand that it?s annoying when someone tells you that something you do, something you?ve done all your life, is wrong and you should change it. I too can?t stand religious fundamentalists who tell me that I should either embrace their beliefs or face eternal damnation. However, I strive not to approach people in such a way. I try to be respectful, open-minded and unpretentious. I listen to people?s points and take them seriously.
Yes, I believe that all forms of animal exploitation should end and that people should stop participating in them. But I sincerely hope that I will be able to convince you through rational arguments, ideally in such a way that you?ll be inspired to look into these issues yourself and draw your own conclusion. I never force my beliefs on anyone. You are of course entitled to close this thread and never look at it again. And you won?t face eternal damnation if you continue eating meat. There are no rewards and no punishments here. When it comes to morality, there never are... unless you think that we only act morally for our own benefit, in that we expect to be treated morally in return. Personally, I think that?s an overly pessimistic view of mankind. I think we act morally because we grasp the concept of a greater good and we desire a world without needless suffering.
Thank you for reading!
