It is important to understand that there are significant differences among those who regard themselves as vegans.
One important difference is between those who maintain that veganism is merely a way of reducing suffering, and those who maintain that it is a fundamental commitment to justice, nonviolence, and a recognition of the moral personhood of nonhuman animals.
The difference between these two groups is not merely a matter of abstract theory—it has profound practical consequences.
The prevailing position on veganism among new welfarists is that veganism is a way—one way—of reducing suffering. Understand in this manner, veganism is no different than cage-free eggs or meat produced from a slaughterhouse designed by PETA-award winner Temple Grandin. These are, new welfarists claim, all just ways of reducing suffering. If X chooses to reduce suffering by being a vegan, great; if Y chooses to reduce suffering by eating cage-free eggs, great. If X decides to reduce suffering on Monday by eating no animal products and on Tuesday by eating “humanely” produced animal products, that’s fine. To maintain that, as a moral matter, X should be a vegan on Monday and Tuesday and every other day is “absolutist,” “fundamentalist,” or “fanatical.”
People like Peter Singer, and groups like “Vegan” Outreach and PETA maintain this position. For example, Singer maintains that being a “conscientious omnivore” is a “defensible ethical position.” He claims that being a consistent vegan is “fanatical.” Singer labels himself a “flexible vegan” who will be non-vegan when it is convenient. He mentions eating free-range eggs and dairy. He talks about the “luxury” of eating meat and other products from animals who have been well treated, in his view, and killed “humanely.” PETA claims that adherence to veganism as a matter of principle is a matter of “personal purity,” “narcissistic cultural fad,” and “fanatical obsession.” “Vegan” Outreach makes the emphasis on suffering clear and downplays the use of animals in claiming that veganism:
is not an end in itself. It is not a dogma or religion, nor a list of forbidden ingredients or immutable laws—it is only a tool for opposing cruelty and reducing suffering.
A fundamental assumption of the new welfarist position is that killing animals does not per se inflict a harm on them. Animals do not care that we use and kill them; they only care about how we treat them and kill them. As long as they don’t suffer too much, animals are indifferent to our using them. They have no interest in continued existence.
It is this thinking that has led to the “happy” meat/animal products movement, which has been the most serious setback in the struggle for justice for nonhumans in decades. It is this thinking that leads PETA and Singer to maintain that we may have a moral obligation not to be vegan in situations in which others will be annoyed or disconcerted by insistence on veganism.
I reject this view. I believe that it is speciesist to maintain that nonhumans must have minds similar to human minds in order to have an interest in continued existence. Any sentient being has an interest in continued life in that she prefers, wants, or desires to remain alive.
We can no more justify using nonhumans as human resources than we can justify human slavery. Animal use and slavery have at least one important point in common: both institutions treat sentient beings exclusively as resources of others. That cannot be justified with respect to humans; it cannot be justified with respect to nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them.
The abolitionist approach sees veganism as the application of the principle of abolition to the life of the individual. It is our personal expression that we embrace the moral personhood of all sentient beings and we reject the status of nonhumans as chattel property. Veganism is an essential part of our commitment to nonviolence.
Veganism is not just a way of reducing suffering; it is what justice for nonhumans requires at the very least. It is not the last step in our journey to reject the moral schizophrenia that characterizes the human/nonhuman relationship; it is the first step. If animals have any moral significance, then we cannot eat, wear, or use them. A vegan is not a vegan only on Mondays, or only when it is convenient. A vegan is a vegan all the time. I would no more not be vegan just because my being vegan made someone else uncomfortable than I would remain silent if someone told a racist joke or harassed a woman because to object would make the perpetrator uncomfortable.
It is no more “absolutist” or “fanatical” to be a consistent vegan as it is to be consistent in one’s rejection of rape or pedophilia. Indeed, to characterize consistent veganism as “absolutist” is itself speciesist precisely because we would not so characterize our complete rejection of fundamental forms of human exploitation.
If you are not vegan, go vegan. It really is easy. It is better for our health and reduces the violence that we do to ourselves. It is better for the planet and reduces the harm that we do to the home of sentient beings and to the ecosystems that sustain all life. But, most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do. We all say we reject violence. Let’s take what we say seriously. Let’s take an important step to reduce violence in the world starting with what we put in our mouths or on our bodies.
And remember, it’s not an impossibility: THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.
Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione
Related posts:
As usual I disagree with you Gary. The truth is your are a fanatic on this issue and your views are extreme. How you feel is your business but when it becomes activism and an all out attempt to get everybody to conform to your views it becomes a little tiring and quite frankly will tend to turn people against you. Personally I dislike all extreme ways of thinking because it becomes an emotional, not logical based view. Allowing emotions to control your thinking tends to result in narrow minded illogical views resulting in an inability to properly defend your position against logical thinkers who do not share your views. I firmly believe you should not be presented as an expert on these forums because being an expert requires clear, logical and unbiased thinking. When you say that being a Vegan is the "Morally right thing to do" you are merely expressing an opinion. Are you Pro Life? Are you against Homosexual marriage ? If not why not as these are considered by more people than are vegans to be the "morally right thing to do".
Disclaimer: I am not a pro life advocate/activist or against homosexual marriage but used these to make a point.
"If not why not as If not why not as these are considered by more people than are vegans to be the "morally right thing to do".
Should have said:
If not why not as these are considered morally correct by more people than veganism .
To counter your argument the mere act of growing plants for food must result in changes to the ecology (clearing of forests etc) and some kind of pest control which will inevitably result in loss of animal life somewhere down the line. Also there is increasing evidence that plant life responds to external stimuli that suggests a level of sentience we do not yet understand. I believe the moral goal of Veganism is impossible to achieve and therefore illogical.
I am a raw food vegan . I feel personally drawn to do this on many levels, most importantly health , but it has nothing to do with the arrogance it takes to be a vegan hard liner. The hard liners say they want to prevent suffering for animals but that position is incredibly condescending and arrogant. It requires that you anthropomorphize animals with human ethics , feelings and morality. Meanwhile you seem to give animal suffering more importance than human suffering. I once attended a PETA meeting and asked if any of them had pets - and the answer was of course YES! I asked them how they could enslave and lock up in prisons their little Fluffies and Spots??? The answer of course was that keeping them off the street was better than the alternative - which is the same answer you get from dairy farmers if you talk to them about releasing billions of suffering farm animals into the wild. It is ridiculous on its face.
I am a raw food vegan. I feel personally drawn to do this on many levels, most importantly health, but it has nothing to do with the arrogance it takes to be a vegan hard liner. The hard liners say they want to prevent suffering for animals but that position is incredibly condescending and arrogant. It requires that you anthropomorphize animals and impose your human ethics, feelings and morality. Meanwhile you seem to give animal suffering more importance than human suffering. I once attended a PETA meeting and asked if any of them had pets - and the answer was of course YES! I asked them how they could enslave and lock up in prisons their little Fluffies and Spots??? The hypocritical answer of course was that keeping them off the street was better than the alternative - which is the same answer vegans get from dairy farmers if you talk to them about releasing billions of "suffering" farm animals into the wild. It is ridiculous on its face - though of course that doesn't justify inhumane factory farming practices.
Also, it is incredibly arrogant and condescending to even want to protect animals from suffering. Suffering is natural. It strengthens the gene pool, weeds out weakness, etc. Animals kept in zoos die if released into the wild - they are not strong enough to handle it. A good portion of beings on this planet hunt and eat other beings on this planet so those victims do suffer, but the predators would suffer greatly if they couldn't do that. And in fact the entire Planet would be out of balance quickly if we decided to protect one species from the other.
If you over protect one of these beings you actually cause suffering. When we used to overprotect trees from forest fires we created conditions which destroyed entire forests forever! Or if you choose to be too kind to a cute dog that Iyou don't properly correct it when it makes mistake, never giving it a strong pack leader to look up to, that dog will become neurotic - you haven't done anything to hurt it but you have been cruel nonetheless and actually increased suffering for that being. The dog is not happy nor well adjusted. Being a strict pack leader, like a dog would have in the wild, is in fact the kindest thing you can do to love your dog. Instead of anthropomorphizing animals and imposing your own ethics and emotions on them, try to understand their reality and how they perceive the world. That is the definition of tolerance and compassion in my opinion, and is the opposite of what some extreme vegans espouse.
The problem is not whether we eat a given species or not, it's how we treat everything else in the world -- it is all out of balance. All the extreme one sided positions in the world work hard to pul it this way and that contributing more and more to imbalance and conflict instead of acceptance and understanding. I choose to be a vegan and have made a personal commitment contribute to all species on the planet with every bite, but without judgement, organized dogma or a neurotic need to impose my ethics on their world. I do love animals - and have danced with eagles on sacred journeys, been guided by wild cats when lost in the wildreness - and I even hug trees. It is my connection with animals that inspires me not to eat them, any more than I would want to eat my human neighbors. It doesn't take a set of rules or a rigid philosophy replete with numerous discussions of the definition of veganism or whether a particular spiritual teacher owns his robes or not - just feel the natural connection we all have with all of nature and each other. I invite you to do the same.
I appreciate your comment. I used to be a functional vegetarian because I thought it was good for me. Now I am happy carnivore (happy because eating meat has improved my health so dramatically). I do strive to eat raw plants whenever possible, for the health benefits .
In any case, I am grateful for your comment about pets . I've always wondered how people who care so much about the freedom and well-being of animals can "keep" them.
You seem to have a very balanced and truly spiritual grasp of things. Thank you for your post.
You said "The hard liners say they want to prevent suffering for animals ". I presume you regard abolitionist vegans as hard liners. If so, you have not understood the abolitionist position. Compassion is important but so is understanding what it is you are attempting to criticise.
Thanks for the article, a very good read, very thought-provoking.
I'm vegan , but I really do it to reduce the suffering. My big life philosophy is that we don't really function as individuals, but rather as a whole. Like we're all cells of this world, and it can't function if we attack each other.. because we need to work for each other and for this world so that this world, this whole world can be well..
I really found your thoughts interesting, I've debated this topic a few times myself, but I disagree on a few issues you raised:
"Animal use and slavery have at least one important point in common: both institutions treat sentient beings exclusively as resources of others. That cannot be justified with respect to humans; it cannot be justified with respect to nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them."
Actually, I think slavery was wrong only in the respect that slaves were treated poorly. If they were treated with luxury and weren't pressured by such a heavy workload, I think they could have a life better than most people today.
And really, the sense in which you use the word slavery also applies to today's jobs : we're all resources to others. Only with jobs, we get money with which we have more options than the outright housing and food slaves received, better work hours, better bosses, better situations, everything better, but it still boils down to the same concept. (There are even restaurants now where they serve human cheese.) That's how our world works. And I think it's better than doing everything individually, not helping and with no help from others. With animals , I truly believe that if we treat them well, don't overwork them, let them live out comfortable, normal family lives in natural environments, taking some milk or eggs now and then won't be too much of a pain for them, really. Actually, they'll be safer from predators.
In any case, I'm wondering what you propose as the ideal. Would you "liberate" cows by releasing them into the wild, would you set up some free spaces for where they can graze and live normal lives, independent from the human society , but safe from predators and the dangers of the human world ( cars , guns , ..)?
Each root apex harbours a unit of nervous system of plants. The number of root apices in the plant body is high and all brain-units are interconnected via vascular strands (plant nerves) with their polarly-transported auxin (plant neurotransmitter), to form a serial (parallel) nervous system of plants. The computational and informational capacity of this nervous system based on interconnected parallel units is predicted to be higher than that of the diffuse nervous system of lower animals , or the central nervous system of higher animals/humans.
Taken from the study at: http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php
But are plants suffering, do you think? (I'm seriously curious, that's not a rhetorical question.)
I haven't researched much about the natural situation plants are in versus the artificial conditions we grow them in, but I've picked up a stereotype, perhaps a true one, I don't know, that plants that look good and healthy, which is what we're going for nowadays, are actually good and healthy. The same goes for animals , except nobody cares how those look, because meats are so heavily processed. And it shows -- animals in factories look much worse than plant fields.
So, I'm thinking our vegetables, fruits, herbs and whatnot are doing a lot better than animals, based on that simple observation.
That is still being debated but the Symposium on Plant Neurobiology at Bonn University has broken some new ground (see links below).
I am no expert but I do think it is interesting that when a fly lands on a Venus Flytrap's petals nothing happens. However, once it tries to leave the petals will close & then start to digest the fly. The plant waits until the fly tries to escape because that differentiate the fly from any speck of dust that would happen to come in contact with the plant. Very smart & efficient plant.
University of Bonn:
http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_neurobiology
National Center for Biotechnology Information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1709102/?page=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633693 /
New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320720.800 -stressed-plants-cry-for-help.html