Right after I got out of grad school, I had a fight with a friend about veal. Said friend loved veal, and more importantly, wanted to cook veal for me; I refused to eat it, which made him mad. It was not, he pointed out, consistent to care about veal calves but happily eat industrially farmed chicken.
"You're right," I said. "I'm going back to being a vegetarian."
Surprisingly, this did not fill him with the thrill of victory. He just got madder. "I don't want you to stop eating chicken," he said, exasperatedly, "I want you to start eating veal!"
Little did I suspect that I would be having some version of this conversation every time I dared blog about being a vegan.
Is it possible to be a vegan without judging other people? It had better be, because I just don't have time to pass judgment on the overwhelming majority of people in the world who eat animal products. Obviously, having decided that it's morally wrong to eat animal products, I can't exactly say that I think it's perfectly okay for other people to do so. On the other hand, I recognize that the universe is a complicated place, and my moral judgements are imperfect.
Or maybe a better way to say it is that there are moral judgements, and then there are moral judgements. I wish more people would stop eating meat, but I also think it is possible to be a perfectly good, moral human being and still eat meat, in a way that I don't think it is possible to be a good moral human being and still rape twelve-year olds. I have judged the behavior and found it wanting, but I do not judge, in any way, the people who indulge in it. I think there's something wrong with eating meat, but I don't think there's anything wrong with meat-eaters.
If it makes you feel any better, I do eat animal products occasionally, when I am travelling and can't get anything else--I think that animal suffering deserves considerable, but not absolute, weight in moral calculations about diet. Given the evidence that vegan children tend to be shorter and have lower IQs than non-vegan children, if I had children I would probably raise them vegetarian rather than vegan. And I wouldn't feel bad about it, either, any more than I feel bad about animal drug testing.
But this isn't enough for many of my critics, who want me to never mention being a vegan, lest they feel bad. Even better if I stopped being a vegan entirely, so that they wouldn't suffer with the knowledge that someone, somewhere, is enjoying a hearty bowl of split pea soup with tofu croutons. Like most vegetarians, I suspect that my angriest critics are those who, like me, feel that eating meat is wrong--and therefore want me to do it too, so that they don't have to think about their own choices.
Well, apologies, but I think that I have a moral obligation to be a vegan. And I blog about it because many of my readers are vegan, and they like to read about it. And also, because I'd like people to know that if you are thinking about animal welfare, being a vegetarian or a vegan is nowhere near as hard as you think it is--believe me, I never thought when I tried veganism for Lent that I'd be able to stick with it, but it's surprisingly easy to keep up with.
But the one reason I am not blogging about it is to make people feel bad. First of all, this never works--if you tell people they're evil, they just get defensive. Second of all, unless you are willing to wall yourself up in a PETA compound, it is not possible to have anything approaching decent interaction with other humans if you spend all your time judging their eating habits. But third, and most importantly, I don't think they're evil. It's okay. Eat your double bacon cheeseburger. I'll still love you every bit as much.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It is, of course, ethically indefensible to pay someone to kill a fellow feeling being so we can eat their flesh instead of a vegetarian product.
If people really didn't recognize this at some level, they wouldn't care at all if you are a vegan or not.
“Do we, as humans, having an ability to reason and to communicate abstract ideas verbally and in writing, and to form ethical and moral judgments using the accumulated knowledge of the ages, have the right to take the lives of other sentient organisms, particularly when we are not forced to do so by hunger or dietary need, but rather do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we like the taste of meat?
“In essence, should we know better?”
Peter Cheeke, PhD, Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 2004
Nutella over at our Fire You site is a vegan, Megan.
Your critics are not made to feel guilty by your constant mentions of your veganism, we're annoyed that you make it entirely about YOU. Instead of informing people about the many benefits of eating less industrial meat you talk about yourself, and how you feel about meat eaters. We don't care, we just wish you'd stop patting yourself on the back in public every chance you get.
On a somewhat related note, I was reading a nutrition book and it stated that meat was the most digestible of all proteins. Proteins from legumes like beans are significantly less digestible.
And generally among people the amount of "digestiblity" toward certain types of proteins (those found in meat vs. other sources) varies with the individual. And it likely various downward - as in your body isn't digesting as much as protein as you think from those beans and tofu.
A protein is not a protein after all.
So this concept, would explain a lot why vegan children suffer and I'm sure vegetarian children suffer to some degree at all.
Of course the solution is not more happy meals for your kids. The solution is a balanced diet and reasonable, frequent exercise. Gee!
As to the morality of eating meat. If there are moral judgments and MORAL judgments as you say, and the former is not of any real significance then perhaps it isn't a moral judgment at all. But a personal preference.
Why do so many people insist on their personal preferences being moral rules to be applied/shared/governing over everyone else?
People haven't changed much. The people preaching hell and damnation, repent now, the world is ending are just the same as they always were. The only difference is the justifications have changed.
There is another group of people you didn't mention: those who don't want you to blog about being vegan because they have strong preferences for your "opinions on economics [and] business" and don't care one way or the other about your eating "moral hazards".
As to the morality of eating meat. If there are moral judgments and MORAL judgments as you say, and the former is not of any real significance then perhaps it isn't a moral judgment at all. But a personal preference.
Ding...ding...we have a winner!
Megan, maybe you should wiki the phrase "moral relativism"...?
Refusing to eat meat animals deprives them of the only reason for living. But worry not, we'll pick up the slack!
:-P
I have judged the behavior and found it wanting, but I do not judge, in any way, the people who indulge in it. I think there's something wrong with eating meat, but I don't think there's anything wrong with meat-eaters.
Yeah, I'm not sure this works, exactly. Or rather, I'm not sure how you can judge an action without judging the person making the action (says the meat-eater) if we are, in fact, responsible for our actions. Saying that meat-eating is a comparatively minor sin, and that you might judge the person but not to the point of harassing or shunning him or her, makes more sense to me.
Yes, but what of the calves you don't eat? Deprived of their purpose, they wander aimlessly through life, often falling in with the wrong crowd. Often it ends with a descent into drug use, petty crime, and prostitution.
How do you sleep nights?
I try not to judge as well, but tofu croutons??? Ewww.
As a vegetarian, I believe that some views which are not universally agreed upon, such as "killing animals is cruelty", should just not be considered morals, but just personal views. Morals can be restricted to more universally accepted views like killing humans is cruelty, stealing is bad, etc.
I do believe that killing animals for eating them is cruelty, but who knows I might be wrong. As long as no one is forcing me to eat animals, I am fine with letting the rest of the world do what it wants.
Little did I suspect that I would be having some version of this conversation every time I dared blog about being a vegan.
You're probably having this conversation because you implied that there's something evil about other people's dietary choices. Being a vegan is fine - it's the self-righteousness that I object to.
You do raise another interesting point, though: if we accept your assertions about vegan children, and we accept your statement that "I think that I have a moral obligation to be a vegan", we have an unavoidable contradiction: clearly, eating meat is not bad for you if it's a component of good health. For your own health, obviously, you are responsible: but if it's a matter of children's health, than I think you're groping toward the right answer: it's not good for everyone to be a vegan, and therefore it's not the sort of thing we can accept as an absolute.
Which from my admittedly casuistic point of view, means it's not truly an ethical issue.
What Scott said.
I find someone who is vegan less odd than the guy I know who avoids eating meat -- even though he doesn't like vegatables. (As far as I can tell, he subsists mostly on cheese pizzas.)
I don't care if you're vegan or vegetarian or why you choose to be so. I really don't care. I simply don't understand how it's somehow a moral choice, but then again, I really don't care what you eat.
I'm on top of the food chain and my body is evolved to eat meat. So I'll eat meat, and not feel bad about it. You can eat whatever you want--it doesn't bother me a bit.
Come on, people. You can have your own sense of right without feeling compelled to impose that sense on everyone around you. That isn't moral relativism and it doesn't just reduce it to a preference, let's instead call it living in a pluralistic society. The notion that in order to hold a moral judgment you must therefore attempt to impose that judgement on all others is vaguely totalitarian.
It seems that the moral arguments generally focus on sentient levels (dare you feast on the flesh of a fellow sentient being when there are alternatives) or enviornmentalism (bad carbon footprint + waste for industrial meat farms).
But I think the main rise of Western vegitarianism (as opposed to longstanding Buddhist practices in the East) come from the distance today's supermaret masses have from the slaughterhouse.
I feel that being an omnivore is a natural state (due to canine teeth and a long history of man in hunter/gather tribes before agriculture). But all meat eating triumphalists like your veal friend should, at least once, be required to kill an animal that they then dress and eat. When faced with this act, they ought to be able to reevaluate their moral judgments on meat.
That said, I've eaten what I've killed before, and still enjoy a good veal saltimboca.
I am of nature, not apart from it, and can be red in tooth and claw.
It is a sign of the times. "If you disagree with me you don't love me, Everyone must love me" Just smile pat them on the head and try to put some distance between you and them.
"But third, and most importantly, I don't think they're evil. It's okay. Eat your double bacon cheeseburger. I'll still love you every bit as much."
This is the problem. People who are comfortable with their meat-eating don't have a problem with you're being a vegan. We even find the posts interesting, for much the same reason that anybody doing something differently is interesting. It's the people who are uncomfortable with eating meat that you need to reach. They want condemnation from you so they can deliver an outright refutation with a clear conscience. It's very selfish of you to be open-minded about their beliefs.
What individuals choose to eat is of no concern to me. Why they choose to eat what they eat is of no concern to me.
However, when they cross the line into proselytizing (as vegans in particular seem wont to do) then my Scooby-Doo ears prick up.
The whole notion that somehow eating a "sentient" species is somehow a less noble or moral act is just another example of foolish humans creating artificial distinctions that Mother Nature just does not recognize.
People are free to choose whatever religion they want - I don't care. Just don't use that religion to keep me from my foie gras!!!
"Is it possible to be a vegan without judging other people?"
Probably but it's almost certainly impossible to preen about the morality of your veganism without at least giving anybody who hears the impression that you are, at least implicitly, judging them. Even if you say you love them and that you're not judging them.
"It had better be, because I just don't have time to pass judgment on the overwhelming majority of people in the world who eat animal products."
Oh thank goodness. So you just like to preen but won't judge because of time constraints. I feel better already.
"Obviously, having decided that it's morally wrong to eat animal products, I can't exactly say that I think it's perfectly okay for other people to do so."
Wow, it really didn't take that long for you to find the time to judge the meat-eaters did it?
"On the other hand, I recognize that the universe is a complicated place, and my moral judgements are imperfect."
Ah. So perhaps rather than your critics secretely harboring your same moral preferences and thus being offended when you "don't judge" by showing off your superior morality, you actually aren't all that sure of your own moral choice and thus feel the need to preen so you can then also affirm your superior "Stuff White People Like" morality by declaring that you "don't judge" as you go about implicitly judging?
Go be a Vegan. Heck, even talk about how wonderfully moral it is every chance you get. But don't do that and tell me you're not judging. Also don't pee in my boot and tell me it's raining.
Frankly, I don't care what you or anybody else eats. I also care only very little what you think of the morality of what I eat: I'm okay with it so who cares what you think.
Of course, I'm also okay with taking the bus despite the opprobrium that earns me from the "Stuff White People Like" crowd. What can I say, I'm an iconoclast.
Please note that I'm not judging you for your preening, I'm just happy that I've made the choice not to do that because I think it's evil. Not baby-raper evil, just, you know, riding-around-in-a-car-with-a-baby-on-your-lap evil.
Hey, Megan The Vegan, eat what you like. If you want to be a vegan, be a good one. I don't see why you need to justify it or argue about it. Eat what you like, and enjoy. Food is good, and don't eat things you don't like. It's not a moral issue at all, unless you want to impose your values on others -- and that's the lurking contradiction in your writings about veganism. You believe your position is morally well-founded; ergo, by your morals, others are immoral. You're the one accusing others, not the other way around. If someone questions your veganism, there is only one reasonable response: "Hey, you want to eat that pukey stuff, go ahead, just keep it off my plate." End of discussion -- de gustibus non est disputandum and all that.
But there's a logical flaw in your reasoning, even so. You say you don't want to eat meat because of the suffering imposed on animals. So, it's not the meat you object to; it's the suffering. If all our hamburgers came from happy California cows who died happily and without suffering, the implication of your reasoning is that you would have no problem grilling up a burger or two.
Humans evolved as omnivores, no doubt about that. They killed wild animals, usually quickly and without suffering. So, would you eat deer killed by a single shot? Happy Bambi, killed instantaneously -- rack of venison, or a nice venison stew. A free flying pheasant or a wild turkey, happily doing their business until shot. Remember, all you'd be doing in these cases is saving them from the fox -- a pretty gruesome death, worse than a bullet.
So, if it's suffering you oppose, don't eat meats from suffering animals living in pens, walloping in their own poop, kept in slavery for meat production. That's your choice.
But there is nothing in your argument that explains why you would not eat the meat from happy animals killed without suffering.
So, can you explain that?
So what, am I not supposed to hate vegans? Is hating a vegan suddenly a bad thing? Pray tell.
Vegans remind me of Notting Hill, where Hugh Grant takes a girl to dinner and she says, "I'm a fruitarian. I don't eat anything that hasn't fallen off a tree by itself."
"So these beans?"
"Murdered."
At some point vegans come to the question: are all animals that eat meat morally bad? Because vegans have come to the belief that animals are in some form equal to humans, and hurting or killing an animal is equivalent morally to human killing or hurting. But if we hold animals to human standards, this dictates that omnivores and carnivores are morally bankrupt--including dogs and cats.
Veganism is just the latest "look at me, I'm such a moral person stance" chosen by yuppies, because it fulfills a bunch of yuppie perogatives:
1) it gives a yuppie moral superiority over other people, including other yuppies; a yuppie vegan is unique (although this later title is disappearing).
2) It requires nothing more than being extremely picky about eating; no positive action is necessary.
3) It is based on extremely loose logic about "morality" that is based on some undefined yuppie notion of absolutes, which, conveniently, cannot be located in a religious system that requires sacrifice, deep thought, or even a basis for such morality.
4) It keeps a yuppie from the company of people they otherwise would have to deal with, all based on the notion of "they eat meat."
5) It allows a yuppie to live in a world where their extreme dietary desires are catered too, like princesses refusing grapes out of season.
There are two ends to modern veganism amongst yuppies (you note I don't include people who are religiously vegan---those people can locate their beliefs as stemming from an absolute they can argue, not some vague right/wrong yuppies made up that also includes hating Bush as one of its tenets). First, veganism may die off, as its faddishness fades and people see the unhealthy side of vegan beliefs, and that vegans are really just PIAs. Secondly, it could take off, and more and more people will become vegans. Vegan chains will open, vegan isels will become mainstays in supermarkets. The result? Yuppie-vegans will get upset that they are no longer unique and morally superior. And they will become even more extreme--and we will actually have fruitarians.
agorabum - well said and I agree. I think most of the modern weirdness around food and nature comes from the rise of urbanism and the consequential disconnect of people from nature. Then they try to establish a connection with nature based on whatever "first principles" they can come up with and end up with weird beliefs.
Did you ever see the movie "Grizzly Man"? He was the reducto-absurdum of this trend. Guy from LA who decided bears were actually friendly if you just loved them enough. Moved to Alaska to protect the bears from the evil hunters. Was eaten by a bear.
The movie is full of the most reality-deprived people you'll ever see. The one shining exception is the local Native-American fellow who the director questions about the 'traditional relationship with bears'. He tells the director that his people's traditional relationship with bears was to stay away from them and kill them when they got too close because bears are dangerous and will eat you.
Oh yeah, and when I say "weirdness around food" I'm also refering to the rise of horrific practices in the meat-industry. I've killed, dressed and eaten what I've killed but I didn't lock it in a cage and torture it for a few years first. I think a lot of people wouldn't be okay with the reality of the meat-industry if they had a better familiarity with it.
My answer isn't to go all vegan on everybody but to try and eat responsibly-raised meat. It's more expensive but one doesn't have to gorge on burgers every day. Besides, properly raised beef is much tastier. Much.
Mmmmm. Delicious, delicious cows...
Honestly, I am Vegan but I believe it is a PERSONAL choice. There are no more health risks associated with eating vegan than there is eating meat. It's how you eat to ensure your body gets the required nutrients.
I am comfortable enough with my own choices to not need to shove them down someone else's throat or condenm them for their choices.
I do get annoyed when people who are not vegan come up to me and ask "What the hell are you eating? You dont eat meat? What's wrong with you?"
Judgement comes from both sides of this issue, whether it is consciously done or not. It's how you respond to it and realize that opinions are as common as fingers, almost everyone has many of them.
Relax, act in a way you believe to be good and kind and then live...that's pretty much it guys :)
The arguments against veganism are pretty strong. They fall into three categories:
1. My religious beliefs state that eating meat is morally ok.
2. Humans are omnivores.
3. Animals are stupid beasts and not morally equivalent to humans.
Of course, vegans automatically make fun of #1, because it is a "religious" belief, where, at the same time, vegans religiously believe in the sanctity of animal life. Once you bring up a moral or religious belief, another party is allowed to bring up their religious belief, because, dear vegans, religion is where much of people's morality comes from.
#2 is strong; we are omnivores. Although PETA terrorists and other nutcases have tried to imprint wacky beliefs upon the public like that meat eating is not natural, biology and archeology show that man an omnivorous creature by nature. No serious scholar would ever question that.
#3 is strongest. Vegans/PETA nuts often confuse stupidity with intelligence, or their pathetic fallacies with truth. Your dog doesn't love you in the same manner your family does; it does what you say because you feed it and they fear you may beat them if they don't do what you say. Or, as one comedian put it: "Oh, you think your dog or cat loves you? Leave the door open and don't feed it for the day. Let's see how much it loves you."
When animals can vote and farm and fix a car, then we can talk about moral equivalence. Until then, I treat them as a would any non-human species---as non-human. And, of course, delicious.
Slate has an article up about the great vegan controversy over honey. (Who'd 'ave thunk?)
So, where do you come down on it: finger-lickin' good, or bee abuse?
There are so many indications of why veganism is hardly moral, and better said by those above.
Being the semi-religious person I am, I take the Biblical approach, which generally says to each his own, while remaining cognizant of the Eden story where man initially had a more benign relationship with the animals and God's injunction for man to be responsible toward the creation.
But if you get into serious discussion about what is moral, it would have to begin with the idea that any moral absolute should be possible for all to apply, regardless of geography, age, or culture.
Megan,
There is a certain futility to being vegan for moral reasons, then saying that you cast no moral judgment on those who eat meat. You try to make a distinction, between moral and MORAL judgments, but I don't think most people see it that way.
If you believe that it is immoral to eat chicken meat, you must also believe that it is immoral for anyone of similar circumstance (wealthy enough, healthy enough, not starving) to eat chicken as well. It makes no sense for an action to be moral for one individual and not another.
People understand this instantly and instinctively, and thus become defensive. If you are vegan for moral reasons, you are implicitly judging others.
If you were to say that you were vegan for personal reasons (health benefits, taste, out of habit), then that would be totally inoffensive, like a person who only wears black. It becomes simply a personal preference, with no moral dimension at all.
The problem I have with your veg-blogging, and that I imagine others may as well, is your insistence that you're not being preachy and strident, deployed to cover up the fact that you're being preachy and strident. Just own it, and realize you can't have things both ways. You're either acting on a personal belief and, beyond a pleasant wish that others would follow you, unconcerned with what anybody else does, or you want to convert the rest of us to veganism by telling us how awful we are for eating animal products. Disguising the preaching as talking about how immoral and awful and terrible you personally feel meat production is doesn't help.
The whole approach is self-righteous and self-congratulatory. It reminds me of many people I know who shop organic, use low VOC paint, drive tiny cars, and so on and can't freakin shut up about it. I, too, do plenty of similar stuff, but the difference is that I consider these personal choices of no larger interest and, hence, lousy conversation. Why on earth would somebody discuss what setting they use on their dishwasher or where they buy their light bulbs unless they get some moral kick out of it? I bring this up because it's often the same thing with vegetarians/vegans--the perfectly timed pre-dinner mention of how much they love soy patties and how awful your hamburger looks to them, or the like. It's a transparent attempt to get credit for being conscientious, and a subtle attempt to gross out the other people at the table.
Thankfully, I'm comfortable with my omnivorousness, so I usually just ignore them and eat my meat. If your veganism really is a personal moral preference, and you really do hold no ill will towards those of us who haven't followed you, I'd suggest you quit yakking about it and eat your wheat gluten. Otherwise, just own the fact that you believe veganism to be an important enough moral imperative that you are willing to crow about how good it makes you feel and how bad the rest of us are. But pick something and be consistent.
Jack wrote: "When animals can vote and farm and fix a car, then we can talk about moral equivalence."
A lot of humans cannot vote. Some cannot read.
Most humans are incapable of farming effectively...and how many people do you know who can fix a car?
Unless you are positing that those who cannot vote, cannot farm and cannot fix a car are a) non human or b) not of moral equivalence. Which would make your argument silly but consistent.
TPM,
Great comment (on 2:57), pretty much nailed all the main points. Just wanted you to know, since I know I get sad when no one recognizes my brilliance on other blogs. I'm paying it forward.
"Unless you are positing that those who cannot vote, cannot farm and cannot fix a car are a) non human or b) not of moral equivalence. Which would make your argument silly but consistent."
Oh, I don't know. My husband and I have an recurrent conversation that can best be summarized as: "do stupid people have souls?" (Particularly after spending time with some strenuously anti-intellectual branches of his family.)
Honestly, I am Vegan but I believe it is a PERSONAL choice. There are no more health risks associated with eating vegan than there is eating meat. It's how you eat to ensure your body gets the required nutrients.
I am comfortable enough with my own choices to not need to shove them down someone else's throat or condenm them for their choices.
I do get annoyed when people who are not vegan come up to me and ask "What the hell are you eating? You dont eat meat? What's wrong with you?"
Judgement comes from both sides of this issue, whether it is consciously done or not. It's how you respond to it and realize that opinions are as common as fingers, almost everyone has many of them.
Relax, act in a way you believe to be good and kind and then live...that's pretty much it guys :)
Rinalia wrote: "A lot of humans cannot vote. Some cannot read.
Most humans are incapable of farming effectively...and how many people do you know who can fix a car?
Unless you are positing that those who cannot vote, cannot farm and cannot fix a car are a) non human or b) not of moral equivalence. Which would make your argument silly but consistent."
---except, moron, that human beings are capable of voting/fixing a car/farm. Sure, you will find undeveloped/aged humans who cannot, but they will either outgrow youth or were once capable. Those who are mentally incapable (i.e. down syndrome) are not the norm, but the exception; they are disabled humans.
Animals, not even chimps, can do none of those things. They are not capable. Your tone-deaf reading suggests a prissy little vegan mashing on her keyboard while she switches between this and cuteoverload.com
The problem I have with your veg-blogging, and that I imagine others may as well, is your insistence that you're not being preachy and strident, deployed to cover up the fact that you're being preachy and strident.
My mother is a vegetarian-not a vegan. She became one for health reasons and has remained one since those reasons. She does not spend her time telling me how she thinks it's immoral to eat meat because, well, she's not preachy and strident. Also, I happen to prepare and eat a lot of vegetarian meals, but it's because they taste good, not because of some feelings I have for what I'm eating.
I will state one caveat: I love veal, but I haven't eaten it for 20+ years. I find that that particular animal treatment is one that I cannot stomach.
It's been said a lot, but I will reiterate: if you mention that you're a vegan because (a) you like it or (b) you enjoy the health benefits or (c) pick any reason, I don't think that anyone would say much except, "Cool". However, when you continually expend the energy to reiterate that you think eating meat is immoral, people are likely to feel properly offended. Your caveat of "Oh, I don't mean to imply that meat eaters are immoral" is, simply put, not believable. In fact, it smacks of cognitive dissonance.
You want to talk about veganism? I think that most people would simply read and digest, as it were. But making passive aggressive moral judgements, while pretending not to do so, isn't likely to fly. My presence notwithstanding, you've got a lot of bright commenters.
Thanks Lane Honda! You made my day.
Now I'll have to pay it forward...
You said:
vegan children tend to be shorter and have lower IQs than non-vegan children
Would you please cite the source of this claim? Thanks.
Megan,
California's Proposition 2 would ban factory farms from raising chickens, calves or hogs in small pens or cages (also see Nick Kristof's NYT column today).
Just curious how you might vote given that you are both a libertarian and a vegan. Thanks.
Here (maybe) are some ways for you to talk about your veganism and morality without setting anyone off:
People have different ideas about the morality of eating meat. I've chosen to err on the side of caution, but I understand those who don't.
I'm not sure about the morality of eating meat and so I choose vegan foods (which I greatly enjoy) as much as possible so I don't have to think about it.
AFAICT (I'd be grateful for constructive criticism) avoid the topic of what you wish other people would do (a sub-topic best left out of this kind of discussion entirely).
Disclosure: I'm an omnivore who can do fine without meat in some (not all) circumstances (I think individuals have differing tolerances for vegian diets) who hates a lot of the realities of factory farming. On the other hand, I think the traditional relationships between humans and food animals is perfectly moral and legitimate.
I've been strictly vegan for 12 years. Although I never shy from telling people "I can't eat that, I'm vegan" for the last ten years, I assiduously avoid discussing my reasons for being so. That said, I do think that every human should be vegan, I think I probably have a moral obligation to encourage them to become vegan, and I consider avoiding the topic a moral failing on my part. As a practical matter though, such discussions pretty much never go anywhere and anyone today who isn't living in a cave should has a fair degree of awareness that their animal or animal derived "food" is produced under conditions that are both unsanitary and inhumane. Here is the consolation that I take when someone tells me they eat veal etc: people are ridiculously stupid and you should never expect them to do the right thing. I am not surprised at all that people eat veal, I am more surprised that they don't insist on slowly torturing their prey before tearing open its abdomen with their incisors to nibble on the liver and kidneys as the helpless animal twitches beneath them. I'm frankly surprised that the privilege of doing so isn't a common sort of food focused entertainment like eating at the Hard Rock Cafe, a Sushi Bar, or a Brazilian Churascuria. People are revolting. They put revolting, unhealthy things into their bodies all the time. They have developed television broadcasts carried on satellites orbiting our planet so they can watch the Food Network or Bravo! and vicariously experience the pleasure of spooning pureed random animal parts into their gullets. My modest proposal: please let us stop funding treatment and research for cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes. Lets let these folks kill themselves off Emeril style so the world move on. The only thing I regret is being forced to pay for the doomed to fail health care cleanup of the assault of corporate agriculture, food processing, and pharmaceutical companies on the typical "corn-fed" American, who is often entirely complicit in the self-destruction. In closing: I plead to you avian flu, to you mad-cow disease, and to you diabetes: rid us of these pestilent people.
Well, isn't that special?
Sigh. Megan, I really, really, really, really, don't care about what you eat. Really. I also really, really, really, really, really, don't care when you write about vegan cooking. In fact, I like it, because I like all manner of cooking.
However, I do take all moral claims seriously, so when someone writes that eating meat is immoral, I feel compelled to engage the endlessly tiresome topic. I will ask again; does anyone here know of a person who does not use furniture? If not, please inform me why it is immoral to see a chicken killed because one prefers the taste of chicken, but it is morally neutral to have a sparrow killed because one prefers to sit on a sofa rather than the floor. Please, please, please don't make me explain how the the manufacture of sofas entails the killing of little birdies.
Jed @ 7:22 says:
"That said, I do think that every human should be vegan, I think I probably have a moral obligation to encourage them to become vegan, and I consider avoiding the topic a moral failing on my part."
See!!!! What did Stewie tell you? Vegans just can't help themselves. They just have to try and preach the righteousness of their artificial distinctions between edible life forms.
Pleez...don't eat meat, or don't wear leather shoes, or don't wear a leather belt, or whatever other little rituals in which your vegan cult members partake. Do what what you want but just STFU.
Humans are animals.
Nature evolved us to be omnivores. Meat in the diet is a part of human nature.
It may also be that meat is important for good health (depending on genetics and other considerations) on average.
Given a choice most people would like more meat in their diet. That says something if you think that appetite tells us what is good for us.
Meat eaters tend to be thinner. At least according to latest research.
BTW I have worked on the killing floor. I have seen the knife put to animal's throats. It doesn't bother me. So at least in that respect (unlike most modern meat eaters) I have paid my dues.
All animals kill to live.
If that bothers you give up your brain and become a plant. So the meat eaters will have something else to munch on.
I'm a killer. And proud of it.
Besides, properly raised beef is much tastier. Much.
I have eaten all kinds of meat from fresh deer kill to the industrial variety (sometimes at the packing plant).
The tastiness is in direct proportion to the time between the kill and the time it hits your mouth. The sooner the better. How the meat is raised has some influence. Just not as much as people think.
I do believe that every meat eater should spend time on the killing floor. If it revolts you then take that into consideration. More meat for me.
agorabum:
"But all meat eating triumphalists like your veal friend should, at least once, be required to kill an animal that they then dress and eat."
Jane has said this before, on her old blog. It is, of course, a perfect statement of the chickenhawk argument, which IIRC Jane doesn't usually agree with.
So, agorabum, can you smelt ore? Weave? Nap your own stone axe? Draw wire? Then feel free to freeze in the dark.
Didn't Adam Smith put this twaddle to bed some time back?
"Vegans" are people from the star Vega.
Those who only eat vegetables are herbivores. You can look it up.
M. Simon said,
Not always true, beef with 21 days aging either dry or in the bag is going to have a superior flavor profile to non aged beef.Or maybe a better way to say it is that there are moral judgements, and then there are moral judgements.
You should add the word "judgment" to your spell-checker. It only has one "e" in it.
Jed said (among other things)
Jed it looks like your desire to preach has overridden any desire you may have had to increase animal welfare and persuade people to your way of thinking.Because hostile, human hating comments like yours are guaranteed to increase the amount of animal products consumed not decrease it.
Comments like Jed's don't help the discussion.
However, I don't get the hostility to Megan's discussion of veganism that shows up in the comments on these threads, and there was a lot of it before Jed showed up.
It is an interesting subject and she is diplomatic in her approach to it. A reasonable discussion about the topic should be possible.
I especially don't get the chest thumping over who has killed or eaten the most tasty animals raised in the most cruel manner possible.
Could anybody explain what is up with that?
Both spellings are correct:
Some day the last cow will look back sadly and wonder why people decided to let her species go extinct. It was those evil vegans....
Bravo Jed! But I'd like to add this in reference to:....."anyone today who isn't living in a cave should has a fair degree of awareness that their animal or animal derived "food" is produced under conditions that are both unsanitary and inhumane." I don't think that's always true. I believe the "industry" and "the culture machine" are doing a fine job continuing their deceptions. I am outspoken and make frequent efforts to reveal factory farm cruelty - Most people don't know and are horrified to learn - Hopefully, they make changes that square up their moral code with their values. I've come to learn that people know very little about "food" - let alone about the ethics of their food.
Which brings us to the morality of eating meat. I don't think there is anything
"immoral" to put anything into your body..... drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, drain
cleaner, or dog poo..... go for it!~~~~~~~ It's your body.... YOUR CHOICE. It's also of
no concern that you wish to consume flesh. However..... the killing to obtain that
"flesh" or "meat" is what is at issue here. I have no problem with anyone trolling any
interstate for their "food" corpses and carcasses. Munch away & bon appetite! It is the unnecessary INSTITUTIONALIZED killing that is the crux of the argument. Choices which negatively effect living beings call for social scrutiny.... for close moral inspection - and for value judgments: "Is this consistent with the ethics of fairness?" Rational man seeks justice and attempts to base his actions on "right or wrong". This thirst for fairness is "humanity" at it's best.
Little is fair about being the caged veal calf, the weary dairy cow, the egg hen......
Little is fair for the hog who sees sunlight for the first and only time on his way to
the slaughterhouse. This suffering is unnecessary - We do not need to
torture/eat/kill animals for "food"..... Man exists quite well on a plant based diet.
But because it is expedient and profitable to exploit cows, chickens and pigs - the
MEat Industry accommodates, (and is paid handsomely) to provide "modern man" his
99 cent gimp-burgers..... Meanwhile, the gluttonous (and duped) public chants it's mantra of "choice", as if the matter was about soft drinks, sneakers or i-pods.....
It is not about eating meat - it's about killing...... It's not about eating vegetables it's about non-violence..... It's not about tradition or habit - It's about awareness and progress.
It is moral for man to wish to further himself - he is delusional if he thinks the ends justify the means. Animal exploitation for "food" or any other purpose is archaic and will not propel us into an enlightened future. For health, for the environment - for the animals.... Go VEGAN
I just have to chuckle at the "inhumane" comment from Jed. OF COURSE it's inhumane; they're just animals!
Remember, when playing cards with animals, don't cheat.
That simply wouldn't be fair.
Nature is red in tooth and claw. We are part of nature. Animals kill to live. We are animals. We kill to live.
Fairness plays no part.
In fact, the less fair, the better. I'd much rather kill a deer with a rifle than with short pointy sticks attached to my head.
Neither does justice. The souls of a million sheep may bleat piteously to be avenged of the coyotes, but the next time they get the other critters of field and forest to sit in judgement over their claims will be the first.
Bea, I'm sincere in my curiosity. When Mr. Lumberjack visits the forest, and cuts down a tree which has in it's branch's Mr. and Mrs. Robins' nest, with all their little chirping babies, who get crushed in the chaos of crashing trunk and branches, so as to make a piece of furniture which you sit on, because you don't like sitting on the floor, how is that any morally different than (to avoid for now a discussion on industrialized livestock practices) my neighbor going to his coop, and killing a chicken, so as to make coq au vin, because he doesn't like eating tofu?
I've met at least a few hundred vegans, many of whom have informed me that they were vegans because they thought it unethical to kill animals purely to provide them the sensual enjoyment of eating them, because one could eat other things. Every single one of these people I met consumed all manner of other things which were unecessary for survival or even simple living, yet which required the killing of animals for the vegan to obtain those things. In other words, these vegans were quite willing to pay other people to kill animals, for no other reason than to provide the vegan with enjoyment or pleasure.
At this point, I think it is reasonable for me to dismiss the sincerity of the vegan ethical argument, and to simply conclude that "ethical vegans" are simply demonstrating that they don't like meat enough to kill for it, but are quite willing to kill for those things that provide "ethical vegans" more pleasure than meat. This strikes me as similar to an armed robber of upscale jewelry stores who criticizes the ethics of robbing 7-11s, without having the honesty to say that they simply find the decor in 7-11s to tacky to spend time in while robbing.
I am a vegan, and I co-host a radio show called Vegan Radio, and you might think I'd be all up into the moral aspects of what I'm doing, but I don't see it that way. The way I see it, there's no point in trying to decide whether the word "moral" applies - it's just too much of an abstraction, and it is already trampled all over by codes based around imaginary deities and such.
No, instead I just look at it as a matter of plain old cause-and-effect. I chose to stop eating meat and dairy because I don't like the effects of it. I don't like the idea that my momentary taste pleasure involves the death of some other being. And I don't like the effect of animal fats on the bloodstream, which in my family has led to early death from clogged arteries.
As for what other people should do, I just try to encourage people to consider in plain terms the effects of their actions, and to make them aware of what goes into their food, and what they are likely to get out of it. People don't have to have abstract notions of what is moral or ethical, when they can simply see for themselves and consider the likely effect of their actions.
Fact is, if there were only a hundred humans on Earth, it would be fabulous for them to eat meat and nature would thrive, and there wouldn't be any major problem. But with billions of us, and the population likely to double again in the next 20 years, it's just better if we each use fewer resources. Meat production is terribly wasteful and polluting, and the overconsumption of meat and dairy is leading to all kinds of health problems, which cost everyone. So, it's just a good idea for everyone to reduce their consumption to a minimum.
Personally, it's just my feeling of concern for animals and respect for their lives that makes it impossible for me to take part in harming them. I realize not everyone shares my feelings, but I do think the world would be a better place and better cared-for if more people shared my concerns. The best I can ever do is try to convey my feelings and hope that it resonates with others. It's alienating to define these questions in terms of morality and ethics, and to try and hold that kind of view in a way divides you from the reality of the situation.
So... just remember cause-and-effect. It's that simple.
Scott, unless you are living in about a 200 square foot abode or less, without furniture and many other items people typically have in their homes, in a location where you can walk to obtain what you need to survive, you are taking part in the killing of animals for no other reason than to provide you things which give you pleasure. Your post was mostly reasonable and intellectually honest until the first sentence of the last paragraph.
As someone who, for ethical reasons, avoids eating meat, I believe that I am morally superior to those who do eat meat (when it is possible not to do so) -- with respect to eating meat. The moral judgement is entailed by the ethical choice. I am perfectly willing to admit that many meat-eaters may be morally superior to me on a lot of other scores -- e.g., donating money to charity, helping elderly people across the street, working for progressive political change. But on the issue of meat-eating, I win, morally speaking. If I didn't believe that, I obviously wouldn't be refraining from eating meat for ethical reasons. Most meat-eaters reject my belief that not eating meat is the morally superior choice. Since they don't see anything wrong in eating meat, they don't agree with my ethical judgement. But I wish people like Megan would stop pussy-footing around the matter of whether they think their choice to refrain from eating meat implies a moral judgement of others. Of course it does! Necessarily. As a matter of strict logic.
Like another poster, I'm curious as to the source of Megan's claim that vegan children tend to have lower IQs. I know that at least one study has shown that more intelligent children are more likely to become vegetarian.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061215090916.htm
But that's hardly surprising. More intelligent children are probably also more likely to become Ayn Rand devotees, or 9/11-conspiracy buffs, or to wind up writing for The Atlantic.
Will Allen: enough already. Yes, any way of life results in some harm in the world. But being vegan seems to be an important way of doing less harm -- to animals, to the environment in general, and hence to humans too.
http://www.jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf
I assume that meat-eaters, including those who only eat "humanely" raised animals, would have no moral objection to eating mentally-disabled human orphans, since there is no morally relevant distinction between such humans and many animals. Cloning could provide us with vast numbers of tasty, mentally-disabled humans. I imagine the flesh of young ones would be especially tasty. Imagine digging into succulent, organic "baby veal" at a fancy restaurant. Yum!
"I assume that meat-eaters, including those who only eat "humanely" raised animals, would have no moral objection to eating mentally-disabled human orphans, since there is no morally relevant distinction between such humans and many animals."
There certainly are morally relevant distinctions.
The primary one is species solidarity. Humans are mammals and mammals engage in cannibalism only in extreme (and rare) circumstances. I don't know whether species loyalty is a moral principle for you but it is for most members of our species.
Another uniquely mammalian trait, concern for other (especially mammalian) species at an individual level is of course a necessary pre-condition for vegianism.
To me, the most interesting aspect of the human diet debate is the interface between species and individual concerns. Until the introduction of factory farming techniques, domestication for food may not have always been wonderful for individual members of said domesticated species but it was very good for the species as species, giving them much safer existences and better (esp quicker) deaths than most individuals of undomesticated similar species experiences. Bleeding to death while unconscious may not be fun, but it beats dying of untreated injury or disease or starvation or being predated (most predators don't necessarily wait for the prey to die before beginning eating).
As often happens, commerce corrupts and I'd favor banning factory farming. If the price of meat went up considerably so that people ate less of it then that would be good too - moderate amounts of meat (muscle and organ) are a natural part of the human diet, massive daily quantities of muscle meat (and no organ meat and not much in the way of vegetables) is out of balance.
To Will Allen - If I may satisfy your "sincere curiosity"..... The tree you speak of - is there no other tree to cut? Is there no way to wait for Mr/Mrs Robin to vacate said nest? Is there no other substance I can make furniture of? If not, is there no way to safely relocate robin nest? You see what I'm getting at here - Killing without exploring all the other options becomes the critical point.
And the same follows for your neighbor killing a chicken, because he "doesn't like eating tofu"..... Are there not thousands of other things to choose beside "tofu" - or are we in a made up survival scenario? Of course there is always killing - but doing the least harm to the least number seems to be the ethical choice..... Your logic says: If I can't be "perfect" by not killing any animals let's grow/kill them by billions -
And no, so sorry but I cannot dismiss that "meat" is gotten from INSTITUTIONALIZED methods - Meaning the majority of the culture recognizes this killing as "okay".
And one other thought on institutionalized slaughter of billions of animals - It is done with my tax dollars via government subsidies to animal agriculture - I don't wish to support studies that endorse "pork the other" or "beef it's what's not for dinner" concils. I don't want my money to subidies grazing cattle on public lands. I want school cafeterias to offer other choices beside dairy and meat menus. I want consistancy from the EPA concerning livestock's damaging rath on air, soil and water. I do not wish bison, coyotes, wolves, starlings, horses or any other animal or plant life to be considered a "threat" to "livestock". The animal agriculture and meat industry has as it's biggest "customer" - the US Gov -
As just one example I will sight the recent fiasco getting our "beef" to South Korea - What butt licking America had to do to get them to accept our "meat" one will never know!
For now - if you must "eat your meat" - do so without my money!
This is really a case in which morality meets reality. The question we always struggle with is: is morality supposed to unequivocally tell us what to do, period, or is mostly just a bunch of codes of everday conduct that ultimately make our lives relatively comfortable and endorse the basic approach of our civilization?
Here we have Megan, who at once thinks that eating meat is immoral, but for some reason won't treat it the same as any other moral judgment, even over likewise minor issues. If someone stole a dollar out of someone's pocket, that would be a pretty minor crime, but presumably Megan would still object to it and condemn it. But but cause incredible suffering to a veal calf? She's too polite to mention the sin. They are still a perfectly good person, even if the minro theif would not be.
I'm actually not intending to jump on Megan here. What she faces is a real problem for the human condition when confronting moral issues that we all face. If animal suffering really is morally important, and I have a hard time understanding how it cannot be, then we face an insane number of moral burdens which would radically alter our lives far more than merely a change in diet. But we don't want to contemplate that, because it's... well, it would just be a pain to bother with.
It's the same with charity, as per Peter Unger's arguments. There don't seem to be convincing reasons at all why anyone should, morally, spend money on going to see the Dark Knight a second time when they could be using that same money to prevent children around the world from dying of famine. There's just no excuse, if we take the suffering of children as a serious moral wrong, and admit that seeing a movie a second time (or even once) is a trivial luxury that we'd easily give up if only we had to hear the cries of the starving child nearby, rather than convieniently (for us) out of earshot.
The unfortunate implication of all of this is that what people call "morality" is in fact mostly the latter description I gave: its a bunch of rules we've come up for making our local civilization, as is, run smoothly. It's little more than social habit: we ultimately selectively ignore the implications of supposed moral principles we claim to hold, applying them only in the contexts that don't cause us too much trouble. They are not a geniune meditation on what is right and wrong to do and not do. Because any geniune attempt to be morally consistent, given basic and commonly agreed upon moral norms, would radically disrupt our lives. And, dude, that'd take a lot of effort.
Amen, sister...
Bea, mijnheer, my point is that of the few hundred ethical vegans I've met, not a single one of them refrained fron using furniture that entailed killing animals, purely to provide comfort for the ethical vegans. Not one. This leads me to believe that such people really don't have an ethical objection to the killing of animals purely to provide pleasure to humans, no matter how much they maintain otherwise. They just get a lot more pleasure from sitting on furniture than they do the taste of meat. When what is ethical behavior is determined by how much pleasure one forgos by avoiding a behavior, it is fair to say that "ethical behavior" has become a fatuous concept. If a thousand people told me that armed robbery is wrong, yet every one of them engaged in armed robbery, I'd conclude that they really didn't believe what they were telling me.
Where did you get that statistic on vegan kids? I was right with you until you started down that path. The American Dietic Association says that a vegan diet is healthful for people of all ages. I know people who have perfectly healthy and tall vegan children.
"But this isn't enough for many of my critics, who want me to never mention being a vegan, lest they feel bad."
Do you honestly believe that the only objection people have to you constantly writing about your personal eating habits on the pages of the Atlantic Monthly is because you make us feel inferior to you? You sincerely believe that any of your personal choices and behaviors make me feel bad about my own life? I'm only asking because I'm almost shocked at the level of self-importance contained in that statement.
I don't think most people care what or why someone eats what they eat, as someone quoted earlier in latin, there's no accounting for taste. But I do think the response that you get as it relates to the "morality" of veganism is simple. It's because the "morality" of veganism lacks sense.
If I said, "I invest in Stocks because I believe that it is morally better to invest in Stocks than Bonds and the people who invest in Bonds engage in some kind of "venial" sin (still maybe only 5 minutes in pergatory), rightly would one look at my morality and say, that is breathtakingly stupid. And they would be correct.
There are really only a few foundations for morality...they are either... religious, utilitarian, or based on a defination of biology.
That is either an authority great than man has decreed such a thing better than NOT such a thing, or the collective decision of man would be that such a thing is better than NOT such a thing, or that our biology supports the supposition that such a thing is better than NOT such a thing. Veganism fails every test.
Then, the morality to Veganism becomes, "because I (the vegan) think it's more moral, which requires the question to be answered why do you think such a thing, and why the flying f*** do I give a s***?
The vegan would most likely answer that because animals are treated badly, and the good response would be, "what is bad, and who gave you the authority to decide it?" The animals aren't complaining, and they, as best we can tell, don't really seem to care. And the worst part is the logic used by many is just incredibly internally inconsistent.
I have observed that vegans do not eat eggs... and yet I make a point of asking vegans if they are pro-choice or pro-life. The number that I have encountered (a skewed sample though being S.F. vegans) are all pro-choice. And yet they cannot understand why I think this is so a**-backwardly stupid. And yet when I question on this logical inconsistency they look at me like I'm the one who's crazy.
I quote:
"As someone who, for ethical reasons, avoids eating meat, I believe that I am morally superior to those who do eat meat (when it is possible not to do so) -- with respect to eating meat. The moral judgement is entailed by the ethical choice. I am perfectly willing to admit that many meat-eaters may be morally superior to me on a lot of other scores -- e.g., donating money to charity, helping elderly people across the street, working for progressive political change. But on the issue of meat-eating, I win, morally speaking."
"I win"???!!! The thing speaks for itself in the understanding of morality, people do not behave morally in competition with one another, they behave morally because it is right. (Yeah I'm a run people off the road and flip people off, and act like a total jerk, but I do X, so I'm win there.) Morality isn't a game with a score.
I don't think most people care what or why someone eats what they eat, as someone quoted earlier in latin, there's no accounting for taste. But I do think the response that you get as it relates to the "morality" of veganism is simple. It's because the "morality" of veganism lacks sense.
If I said, "I invest in Stocks because I believe that it is morally better to invest in Stocks than Bonds and the people who invest in Bonds engage in some kind of "venial" sin (still maybe only 5 minutes in pergatory), rightly would one look at my morality and say, that is breathtakingly stupid. And they would be correct.
There are really only a few foundations for morality...they are either... religious, utilitarian, or based on a defination of biology.
That is either an authority great than man has decreed such a thing better than NOT such a thing, or the collective decision of man would be that such a thing is better than NOT such a thing, or that our biology supports the supposition that such a thing is better than NOT such a thing. Veganism fails every test.
Then, the morality to Veganism becomes, "because I (the vegan) think it's more moral, which requires the question to be answered why do you think such a thing, and why the flying f*** do I give a s***?
The vegan would most likely answer that because animals are treated badly, and the good response would be, "what is bad, and who gave you the authority to decide it?" The animals aren't complaining, and they, as best we can tell, don't really seem to care. And the worst part is the logic used by many is just incredibly internally inconsistent.
I have observed that vegans do not eat eggs... and yet I make a point of asking vegans if they are pro-choice or pro-life. The number that I have encountered (a skewed sample though being S.F. vegans) are all pro-choice. And yet they cannot understand why I think this is so a**-backwardly stupid. And yet when I question on this logical inconsistency they look at me like I'm the one who's crazy.
I quote:
"As someone who, for ethical reasons, avoids eating meat, I believe that I am morally superior to those who do eat meat (when it is possible not to do so) -- with respect to eating meat. The moral judgement is entailed by the ethical choice. I am perfectly willing to admit that many meat-eaters may be morally superior to me on a lot of other scores -- e.g., donating money to charity, helping elderly people across the street, working for progressive political change. But on the issue of meat-eating, I win, morally speaking."
"I win"???!!! The thing speaks for itself in the understanding of morality, people do not behave morally in competition with one another, they behave morally because it is right. (Yeah I'm a run people off the road and flip people off, and act like a total jerk, but I do X, so I'm win there.) Morality isn't a game with a score.
Ah, it's comforting to an immoral heathen like myself that every time I bite into a cheeseburger, I'm pleasing the Dark Lord.
I love being evil.
Personally, I wish you would post more on the economics of veganism and food policy.
The primary ethical motivation for many vegans is the principle "it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering." The predominant meat production industry in this country inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering on a massive scale. Gov98, and anyone else who believes "The animals aren't complaining, and they, as best we can tell, don't really seem to care," has apparently not seen or read about what actually occurs inside modern factory farms and slaughterhouses. The animals are suffering terribly. Many are clearly in pain (as evidenced by bellowing/screaming and struggling while having limbs removed or being dropped in a scalding bath tank while still alive, and so on).
How do we know these behaviors indicate pain and suffering? (1) Science - we know which brain structures are responsible for pain, and for fear; we know the hormones and neurochemicals released as part of the pain and fear responses. These systems are built, and operate, very similarly across all warmblooded species (and some cold-blooded ones too, though my physiological knowledge of these is more sketchy than for avians and mammals); humans, dogs, cats, cows, pigs, chickens, ... all have similar pain mechanisms and responses, and similar fear mechanisms and responses. (2) Common Sense - if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Humans scream and struggle when we're in intense pain; we'd be in intense pain if someone cut off our arm or threw us in boiling water; ergo, other creatures who act similarly to us, in conditions similar to ones that would cause us to act that way, are probably experiencing similar sensations as we would be. These principles of science and common sense are recognized legally - these provide the backbone of current laws against animal cruelty in this country.
It is true many people today are unaware of the details of how meat animals are raised and killed. We all make moral choices every day in deciding how much to learn about ethical concerns A, B, C, D, ..., X, Y, Z that proliferate in the world today, and then in deciding what to do about the ones we are sufficiently educated about. The vast majority of us cannot educate ourselves about *all* of the terrible things occurring in the world today, nor can we commit resources (time, money, other sacrifices) to each one of these. Ethical vegans and vegetarians have chosen to educate themselves about how meat, milk, and egg-producing animals are currently treated, and have chosen to act on their concerns by not eating meat - which lowers the market demand for such products and ultimately reduces the numbers of animals that will be farmed and killed in such a way. (And if "ethical vegetarianism" reaches sufficient proportions it may even make it more profitable for the meat industry to raise and kill its animals in more humane ways so as to appeal again to a wider market of consumers).
The principle of 'avoiding the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering' is a fundamental moral principle, held as self-evident in many of the world's religions. For most of us, it is probably one of the most central to our own individual moral codes. It is also one of the axiomatic principles identified in works on the philosophy of ethics. It is simply ignorance to dismiss a vegan or vegetarian's choice not to eat meat on these grounds as merely a personal preference and not a moral determination.
Again, we all are limited in the number of moral causes we can adopt, and in the depth of our responses. How many starving children in ethiopia can I feed; how much can I give towards halting the genocide in Darfur; how much time can I spend helping out at the local soup kitchen; how much personal sacrifice am I willing to make for this cause that cause and the other one. But just like someone who's working tirelessly every single day to stop ethnic cleansings hopes that his/her example will spur others to do the same, and so to help reduce one cause of unnecessary suffering in our world, vegans and vegetarians hope that their example will cause others to eat less meat, and thus help to reduce another cause of unnecessary suffering in our world.
I don't see where the hatred and caustic dismissiveness of vegans/vegetarians comes from that is so prevalent in the responses here. It does remind me, however, of the anger, ridicule, and dismissive taunting that early proponents of slaves' rights, civil rights, women's rights, received when they were fighting to broaden the sphere of moral concern to include these groups. In each of these cases, taking significant action entailed radically changing the existing social order, with long-term consequences that at the time were not clear just what they would be, and were therefore scary. What would life be like without our slaves, how would the plantations run? What would life be like if women were given the vote, and allowed to compete for the same coveted jobs as men? If blacks were allowed to go to the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, and hold the same jobs as the rest of us? These all changed things hugely in ways we couldn't fully predict ahead of time but which were guaranteed to alter our current comfortable status quo. What would be like if we all stopped eating meat and became vegan out of concern for animals' welfare, or even their "rights"? This too would change society in important ways, not fully knowable in advance but certain to shake up our current ways of doing things. I believe this is why it generates so much heat, and such intensive disgust/dismissive/loathing responses.
The primary ethical motivation for many vegans is the principle "it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering." The predominant meat production industry in this country inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering on a massive scale. Gov98, and anyone else who believes "The animals aren't complaining, and they, as best we can tell, don't really seem to care," has apparently not seen or read about what actually occurs inside modern factory farms and slaughterhouses. The animals are suffering terribly. Many are clearly in pain (as evidenced by bellowing/screaming and struggling while having limbs removed or being dropped in a scalding bath tank while still alive, and so on).
How do we know these behaviors indicate pain and suffering? (1) Science - we know which brain structures are responsible for pain, and for fear; we know the hormones and neurochemicals released as part of the pain and fear responses. These systems are built, and operate, very similarly across all warmblooded species (and some cold-blooded ones too, though my physiological knowledge of these is more sketchy than for avians and mammals); humans, dogs, cats, cows, pigs, chickens, ... all have similar pain mechanisms and responses, and similar fear mechanisms and responses. (2) Common Sense - if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Humans scream and struggle when we're in intense pain; we'd be in intense pain if someone cut off our arm or threw us in boiling water; ergo, other creatures who act similarly to us, in conditions similar to ones that would cause us to act that way, are probably experiencing similar sensations as we would be. These principles of science and common sense are recognized legally - these provide the backbone of current laws against animal cruelty in this country.
It is true many people today are unaware of the details of how meat animals are raised and killed. We all make moral choices every day in deciding how much to learn about ethical concerns A, B, C, D, ..., X, Y, Z that proliferate in the world today, and then in deciding what to do about the ones we are sufficiently educated about. The vast majority of us cannot educate ourselves about *all* of the terrible things occurring in the world today, nor can we commit resources (time, money, other sacrifices) to each one of these. Ethical vegans and vegetarians have chosen to educate themselves about how meat, milk, and egg-producing animals are currently treated, and have chosen to act on their concerns by not eating meat - which lowers the market demand for such products and ultimately reduces the numbers of animals that will be farmed and killed in such a way. (And if "ethical vegetarianism" reaches sufficient proportions it may even make it more profitable for the meat industry to raise and kill its animals in more humane ways so as to appeal again to a wider market of consumers).
The principle of 'avoiding the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering' is a fundamental moral principle, held as self-evident in many of the world's religions. For most of us, it is probably one of the most central to our own individual moral codes. It is also one of the axiomatic principles identified in works on the philosophy of ethics. It is simply ignorance to dismiss a vegan or vegetarian's choice not to eat meat on these grounds as merely a personal preference and not a moral determination.
Again, we all are limited in the number of moral causes we can adopt, and in the depth of our responses. How many starving children in ethiopia can I feed; how much can I give towards halting the genocide in Darfur; how much time can I spend helping out at the local soup kitchen; how much personal sacrifice am I willing to make for this cause that cause and the other one. But just like someone who's working tirelessly every single day to stop ethnic cleansings hopes that his/her example will spur others to do the same, and so to help reduce one cause of unnecessary suffering in our world, vegans and vegetarians hope that their example will cause others to eat less meat, and thus help to reduce another cause of unnecessary suffering in our world.
I don't see where the hatred and caustic dismissiveness of vegans/vegetarians comes from that is so prevalent in the responses here. It does remind me, however, of the anger, ridicule, and dismissive taunting that early proponents of slaves' rights, civil rights, women's rights, received when they were fighting to broaden the sphere of moral concern to include these groups. In each of these cases, taking significant action entailed radically changing the existing social order, with long-term consequences that at the time were not clear just what they would be, and were therefore scary. What would life be like without our slaves, how would the plantations run? What would life be like if women were given the vote, and allowed to compete for the same coveted jobs as men? If blacks were allowed to go to the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, and hold the same jobs as the rest of us? These all changed things hugely in ways we couldn't fully predict ahead of time but which were guaranteed to alter our current comfortable status quo. What would be like if we all stopped eating meat and became vegan out of concern for animals' welfare, or even their "rights"? This too would change society in important ways, not fully knowable in advance but certain to shake up our current ways of doing things. I believe this is why it generates so much heat, and such intensive disgust/dismissive/loathing responses.
Megan: "Given the evidence that vegan children tend to be shorter and have lower IQs than non-vegan children, if I had children I would probably raise them vegetarian rather than vegan. And I wouldn't feel bad about it,"
Are there those who feed their children a scrupulously vegan diet? There seem to be two moral imperatives at cross-purposes, viz., avoiding harm to animals vs. avoiding harm to a child. For those caught in this situation, having children may, in itself, constitute an immoral act.