I absolutely love this post. I have a feeling this will quickly become one of the few websites I visit every day. I'm glad to have you back in my Internet life! I am looking forward to soaking up all you write!

Posted by Lisa Rimmert on 10/08/2008 @ 06:31PM PST

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/10/2008 @ 03:09PM PST

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

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

My mother once told me that she's not surprised I am vegan: apparently smart people know enough to refrain from eating other smart people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6180753.stm?lsm
/>

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/10/2008 @ 10:00PM PST

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

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

Posted by Michelle Cehn on 10/11/2008 @ 06:44AM PST

Love the post.

Posted by Kali HPAlliance on 10/11/2008 @ 08:08AM PST

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

Posted by chris peterson on 10/12/2008 @ 06:56AM PST

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

Posted by Juan Calavera on 10/12/2008 @ 06:56PM PST

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

Posted by Lisa Rimmert on 10/13/2008 @ 05:25AM PST

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

Posted by Conor Cradden on 10/15/2008 @ 06:03AM PST

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/15/2008 @ 09:50AM PST

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/15/2008 @ 06:05PM PST

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/15/2008 @ 07:03PM PST

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/15/2008 @ 11:28PM PST

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

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

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

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

Posted by Conor Cradden on 10/16/2008 @ 12:20AM PST

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

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

Posted by Blake Watson on 10/16/2008 @ 07:36AM PST

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

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

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/16/2008 @ 08:04AM PST

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/16/2008 @ 09:40AM PST

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

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

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

Posted by Conor Cradden on 10/16/2008 @ 12:31PM PST

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

Posted by Conor Cradden on 10/16/2008 @ 12:33PM PST

"It doesn't just come from nowhere."

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

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

Thanks for considering my comments.

Posted by Blake Watson on 10/16/2008 @ 01:31PM PST

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/16/2008 @ 07:25PM PST

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

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

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/17/2008 @ 09:29AM PST

Here's an essay about speciesism:

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/17/2008 @ 09:30AM PST

Here's the link:

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/17/2008 @ 09:31AM PST

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

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

Posted by Conor Cradden on 10/17/2008 @ 10:22AM PST

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/17/2008 @ 10:42AM PST

Here's the best essay on speciesism to date:

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/17/2008 @ 10:42AM PST

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/17/2008 @ 11:22AM PST

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Conor Cradden on 10/17/2008 @ 12:23PM PST

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

Posted by Juan Calavera on 10/17/2008 @ 01:51PM PST

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/17/2008 @ 02:03PM PST

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

Posted by Juan Calavera on 10/17/2008 @ 02:15PM PST

Quote:

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

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

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

Here's a post on selective reasoning Conor:

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

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/17/2008 @ 04:03PM PST

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

Posted by Juan Calavera on 10/17/2008 @ 04:54PM PST

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/18/2008 @ 10:53AM PST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/19/2008 @ 04:45PM PST

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 10/20/2008 @ 10:12AM PST

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

Posted by rachel mulroy on 10/26/2008 @ 08:22PM PST

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

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

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/27/2008 @ 07:49AM PST

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

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

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

Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 10/27/2008 @ 08:02AM PST

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

Posted by rachel mulroy on 10/28/2008 @ 10:25AM PST

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Brandi Higgins on 10/28/2008 @ 01:13PM PST

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

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

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

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

Posted by Chris Babcock on 10/29/2008 @ 07:28AM PST

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

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

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

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 10/29/2008 @ 08:00AM PST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think global, eat local.  

Posted by Greg Plotkin on 11/03/2008 @ 12:44PM PST

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I boycott Wal-Mart!!

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

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/03/2008 @ 01:12PM PST

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

Posted by Greg Plotkin on 11/03/2008 @ 05:34PM PST

Thanks Greg!  Checking it out right now!!!

Posted by Lisa Smolen-Jenk... on 11/04/2008 @ 07:26AM PST

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/04/2008 @ 03:35PM PST

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

Posted by rachel mulroy on 11/05/2008 @ 04:45AM PST

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

Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/05/2008 @ 05:27AM PST