This is a post for the Philosophy Blog War and you can vote for me HERE.
I’m vegan and proud of it!
I haven’t always been this way though. I used to be vegetarian and before that, when I depended on my parents for my daily meals, I ate meat and eggs. I’m often asked why I’m vegan, what on earth do I eat, and how I reconcile my views with the dominant western ideology of the necessity of meat eating.
Well, the primary reason I’m vegan is moral. I certainly know that it is not universally accepted that animals are moral agents but I believe they are. I’m certain that here in
Most people will respond to such a moral argument by stating that because the animal industry is so ingrained in our society, my ceasing involvement in the animal industry will have no noticeable effect on animal welfare issues. Is it a valid argument to claim that people can only be morally culpable if they commit perceptible harm? To this I have to turn to Jonathan Glover and what I’ll call ‘Glover’s Problem’. ‘Glover’s Problem’ is as follows:
Glover imagines that in a village, 100 people are about to eat lunch. Each has a bowl containing 100 beans. Suddenly, 100 hungry bandits swoop down on the village. Each bandit takes the contents of the bowl of one villager, eats it, and gallops off. Next week, the bandits plan to do it again, but one of their number is afflicted by doubts about whether it is right to steal from the poor. These doubts are set to rest by another of their number who proposes that each bandit, instead of eating the entire contents of the bowl of one villager, should take one bean from every villager's bowl. Since the loss of one bean cannot make a perceptible difference to any villager, no bandit will have harmed anyone. The bandits follow this plan, each taking a solitary bean from 100 bowls. The villagers are just as hungry as they were the previous week, but the bandits can all sleep well on their full stomachs, knowing that none of them has harmed anyone (Singer 1998:67).
Each of us, even though it may not be perceptible, is responsible for the collective damage we cause.
To this one may validly state that I am just one out of the 100 bandits so 99 beans will still exist, however, in our increasingly global society one cannot know whether one is the first bandit or the 100th bandit. Even if I was the 80th bandit the villagers would still suffer. I may go into the supermarket and decide to purchase some pork chops and rationalise that I am not committing a moral offence because the pig would have died anyway and it’s likely that my not purchasing the pork chops and instead choosing TVP will cause no difference to the supermarket’s purchasing pork chops next week. This may be correct, however we will never know how many pork chops the supermarket, or pig farm pigs, need to sell to make it viable to purchase or produce more next week, and the same for TVP. Maybe I’m the deciding customer.
The meat industry is the world’s largest environmental hazard. It is the world’s largest consumer of water and the largest consumer of fossil fuels. Using just under ten kilograms of grain protein to produce one kilogram of meat protein is absurd. If we stoped feeding grain to animals used in the production of meat and instead made bread we would have enough grain to feed every person on earth with the equivalent of seven loaves of bread per day!
It takes 50 kilograms of water to produce one kilogram of wheat while it takes up to 50,000 kilograms of water to produce one kilogram of beef! Stop complaining of a drought
As for what I eat. Well being a vegan chef I find that question quite easy and I’ll even provide a simple recipe for you all to try.
Simon’s Asian Noodle Soup
- One 250 Gram packet of dried flat egg free noodles
- Five dried shitake mushrooms
- Half a cup of soy sauce
- Half a cup of mirin
- Half a handful of chopped shallots
- Two tablespoons of sugar
1. Boil the noodles until cooked, strain and rinse under cold water
2. Boil the mushrooms in half a cup of water
3. When mushrooms are softened remove from water, slice and put back in the pot with the soy sauce and mirin and cook for another five minutes
4. Add the sugar and stir well
5. Combine the cooked noodles with the sauce and sprinkle with shallots
Singer, P 1998, 'A Vegetarian Philosophy', in Griffiths, S & Wallace, J, Consuming Passions, Manchester, .pdf
24 comments:
Hi Simon,
Sounds like you have your ideas pretty well explored. I respect that.
For myself, I have chosen to go the alternate route -- organic. That way I do not participate in the factory farming of animals and all of the abuses that occur. I hope to get to the point where I am purchasing all of my food products from individual people, whom I can look in the face and know what they do and why. But I'm not there, yet.
There are two concerns I have about veganism -- not that I am trying to dissuade, just offereing thoughts for consideration -- I don't know about Australia, but in the US, most of the vegan food alternatives are produced by the same stinking corporations that are responsible for the worst-practice factory farms. So while you are making an impact on what they produce and how much, you are still supporting the corporation iself.
Second, producing more food is not on my list of positive behavior modification. Ending world hunger has more to do with reducing population (and especially population growth). One of these days, I'll have to a complete article on this, as I have so far only hinted at it...
Cheers!
tp
I do not dispute what you say about cruel practices or the meat industry - many things need to change.
But at the same time, I feel I cannot get behind the ideal of veganism as a moral stance. We are all free to make decisions in life, but to imply that being a vegan is moral implies that those who choose to eat meat are not. The onther problem with making it a moral argument is one of validity. Certainly you can't be arguing that all societies and people who eat meat are immoral. That would include every society since the dawn of humanity.
But then what of the animal kingdom? Certainly you wouldn't consider a Tiger to be immoral, although I'm sure you could find several gazelle that would.
Also moral implies a choice. To be immoral wouldn't the meat eater have to know that eating the meat was wrong and choose to do it anyway?
I think veganism is a fine choice if it suits you, but I think making it about morals is a slippery slope.
Thanks for the comment TP and I commend you for going organic. I too agree that moving away from factory farming is necessary and where I am in Australia that is such an easy thing to do. I can safely say that 100% of what I buy comes direct from the person who produced it.
I know I used as a premise purchasing vegan food in a supermarket but this is just an example. I'd always advise TVP over pork chops if you are going to buy from a supermarket but I do agree with you that supporting large corporations that may also own un-ethical operations should be avoided.
I don't quite understand what you mean by producing more food. One of my premises was about the amount of grain to potential bread and grain protein to meat protein but I'd never advocate producing more food (unless nedeed). What I was attempting to state, and excuse me if I failed, was that with the amount of grain that we produce now we have enough to feed the worlds population seven times over. Also that it takes ten kilos of grain protein to produce one kilo of meat protein is just such a waste. If we can support the world's population now on a vegan diet seven times over why do we need to reduce the population?
Hi Navillus.
I'm not quite sure why you use the term slippery slope here in criticising my argument. On going over your site you seem to know quite a bit of philosophy so you would likely know that a slippery slope argument can just as much be valid as it is invalid. Also, I'm not to sure how you classify my argument as a slipper slope. For those who don't know, a slippery slope argument states that: if A therefore B, or, if A occurs it is more likely that B will occur. I'm not quite sure I did that and it's more likely that you are using that statement as a straw man. Even more so by using the animal kingdom statement. I don't think I'd ever advise a tiger to go to the supermarket and use it's rational ability to give up the packaged pork chop and chose the TVP!
You have two arguments that seem to be:
-I only commit a moral offence if I know I am commiting a moral offence
and
-2: Vegans are moral
1: Society since the dawn of time is moral
C: Meat eaters are moral
The first argument is absurd and our entire legal system is based around it's refutation. If I commit an offence and the police officer catches me I am not going to be let off because I didn't know it was an offence. If I evicerate a chicken alive and believe I'm not commiting a moral offence am I not then commiting a moral offence?
What, then, of the other argument. I do believe that eating meat is not moral. Therefore I do believe that if you eat meat then you are not moral. Your argument from the dawn of time is absurd. What did people eat a million years ago? 500,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? 5,000 years ago? Can you tell me? What else did these people do? Should we rearange our world based on the principles of an ancient primative people?
There's one thing I'd tell a person of 50,000 years ago, if I had access to a time machine of course; when shopping in your local supermarket please choose the TVP over the pork chop. Or I may even say stop using all your water on your factory farms so the people who don't have enough to drink can quench their thirst.
Hi Simon,
That is fabulous that you can get all of your products locally, like that. Last summer I met a buffalo rancher that uses not only organic, but permaculture and bionetics (I think that's what its called) on his farm. He sells all of his meat face to face and that's that... unfortunately he and I are over a thousnad miles from one another, so its not really local, eh?
If we can support the world's population now on a vegan diet seven times over why do we need to reduce the population?
We can support the world's population, today... but if we can we afford to let our population grow 7x?
I know I'm being vague, but I'll have to make this my next blog war entry... cos its important and at the same time, easy to mistake with Malthus (which, of course is demonstrasbly wrong)
On Navillus' comment...
Am I the only relativist in the room?
tp
Permaculture is an interesting thing and I'm quite lucky to live just down the road from a University that heavily promotes it. I participated in a confrence not long ago on permaculture and the biggest problem seems to be in the distribution of the product and not in the farming of the product.
One example given was of some yoghurt produced in New Zealand sold in the local co-op as local biodynamic permaculture yoghurt. It was in a plastic bottle where the oil came from the middle east and was refined into plastic in South America before being sent to New Zealand to be distributed. The label came from paper from trees from South America which was then shipped to India to make into rolls of paper then shipped to Hong Kong for printing and then back to New Zealand. Kind of defeats the purpose really.
Thanks for clearing up what you meant by population. I do agree that population control needs to be looked at as an ever expanding population will likely only cause harm. I guess what I was trying to get at was that there is no need for people to be starving and without water now as we already have enough. Thanks for the comments.
I've received a few emails regarding this post; can you please post your responses here so others can read them as well.
A couple of emails have questioned how what I do morally relates to my contention that animals are moral agents so I'll post a quick reply here.
My belief (not exactly as in my post above) simply standardised is as follows:
1: If animals are moral agents then we need to treat them as moral agents.
2: Animals are moral agents.
3: We do not cause harm to moral agents.
C: We do not cause harm to animals.
Since killing is causing harm and we don't kill moral agents and I believe animals are moral agents then we shouldn't kill or harm animals.
Simon, i am always interested to read and listen to your ideasand views .
"It takes 50 kilograms of water to produce one kilogram of wheat while it takes up to 50,000 kilograms of water to produce one kilogram of beef! Stop complaining of a drought Australia and become vegan, the whole world will be better off for it". this is fantastic to point out.- Why does the government not Listen to this? I believe that one day you may change the world with your views my good man.
Hi Simon,
Okay, now that you have clarifed your explicit argument, I need to probe a little ;-)
If it is 'wrong' to cause harm to(or kill) a moral agent, and animals are moral agents, therefore hunting is wrong... then what do you do about the lion hunting the gazelle? Since they are both moral agents, would not the same argument apply?
tp
Simon, you are basing your entire argument on the "fact" that an animal is a "moral agent"- without really define "moral agent" or supporting your reason for believing this.
Also- you say there is enough food for the population- this food has to be shipped somehow- you'd have to find an economic system that didn't include the meat industry to get this to work. As a vegan, you'd presumably need to figure out how to ship the food without using petrol. You mentioned the idea of Norwegians moving to a more temperate climate on my blog- this means 4 million- then there are the Islanders, Swedes, Finns, Russians, CHinese, Canadians. . . we're talking mass migrations to the mediteranean. It's not realistic.
I am afraid I can't follow the logic, though I certainly understand the emotions. If you are going to talk about absurd arguments and logic phallacies, basing your argument on "moral agents" is knocking the feet out from under yourself. (i think- she said humbly)
Simon,
considering that the "war" is as much about traffic as about logic, you are really cool to link up all the warriors like you've done. It's generous and I'll follow your example.
You've certainly given me a lot to think about ... so much so that I can't make heads or tails about what's going on in my head right now :)
I think making the conscious decision to cut animal products our of your diet is a valid one - however, I've never believed in the moral argument of it. I don't even believe that a productive discussion regarding "morals" is possible. I believe morals are subjective - not that there aren't several that the majority of humans might be able to agree upon - but they're subjective and talking about decisions based on morals is like "discussing" abortion or the death penalty.
Great entry. I'll be back frequently, I'm sure ...
Ah people, people...
Why do non-vegetarians feel so threatened by the concept of not killing animals for food? Do what you want... nobody's forcing you to do anything - but don't attempt the use of philosophy or biology to justify your stance.
It's quite simple really - can I kill the animal I want to eat? If I can and I want to, then indeed it's my right to do it. But if I can't, then why do I buy it off a shelf? That's avoiding my responsibility and I think we all know that - hence the angst this discussion raises!
Oh - you think we're made to eat animals? Then let me see you kill your own pig or cow or sheep. I want to see you do it yourself - without a gun, knife, or club. We're made for it aren't we? Surely bare hands, teeth and fire are all we need? Surely if we're made for it, like lions, we don't even need the fire...
The commandment was "thou shalt not KILL"
Great post Simon :) Good on you...
Wow,
I have one day off from the PC and I've got all these comments to come back to.
Thanks for the support evenstar, it's nice to have a positive comment once in a while.
Looking over most of the comments I think my using the word moral was probably not so wise. I chose the word moral over ethics as most people can identify with it more. After all, this is just an informal discussion is it not? Most would agree that the word moral implies the way we act on our actions, on our ethics, so if need be I'll try to be a little less coloquial in my language for your benifit.
Thanks for the comments again ren.kat. I didn't define some of my terms for the above mentioned reason, this, I thought, was just an informal discussion. If I need to define my terms better in the future I will but if you don't know what something is just google it or put it in wiki. I'm not quite with you on the not using oil 'cause I'm vegan argument though. My argument was that we shouldn't capatalise, in any way, of off the harm of animals. I'm not so sure that using oil, however immoral, is causing harm to animals. Directly anyway.
Linus1219, thankyou too. I do, however, disagree that animal welfare is subjective just like I don't agree that abortion is subjective. I do think, however, that both of these issues come under a universal ethical law. Just because there is disagreement does not mean that the issue is subjective, changeable, transferable etc.
And to TP. Thanks for engaging with my argument and not extending my argument unfairly or drawing too strong a conclusion. In using an argument from analogy like you've presented here, for it to be valid, the relevant similaraties have to out weigh the relevant differences and, in my opinion, the relevant differences far out weigh the relevant simmilarities in this case. I won't present too much of an argument in this comment space but evenstar has given one relevant difference above.
Thankyou all for all your comments and I hope my next blog war entry draws this much attention.
Evenstar- I don't think that many are threatened. What we are reacted to is the labeling of "immoral" or "unethical" actions. When you say that veggie lifestyle is the moral lifestyle, you are claiming a very special kind of superiority. And that kind of claim is offensive to most people and at the heart of all religious wars. Vegetarianism becomes subject to the same kind of emotional ideology that is the usual characteristic of a religion.
That's why. Ain't got nuthin' to do with animals at all, really.
I think my last comment went through- yours are moderated right?
Simon, I was wrong to pull in the oil bit into this discussion and tie it to vegans. I have understood vegans to not use any animal products period (harvesting honey doesn't harm the bees, but it exploits them- I assumed that any animal product at all would fall under that category, but I do not know.) I've enjoyed very much reading your posts and comments etc. I still think that vegetarianism is a valid choice (and I'd probably still be a vegetarian if I weren't losing my hair - a very unethic reason for returning to meat- but I still think the choice in and of itself makes a difference in the world, nor do I believe that the whole world going vegetarian will make the world healthier or more humane. Even the Bhagavad-Gita is about a Warrior. - thanks, Simon for a great discussion- better than any button!
Evenstar: For shame! I don't think anyone is being defensive about not eating animals for food. But it is valid to be somewhat defensive when you are being told you are 'immoral' or 'bad' or 'inferior', don'cha think?
It is quite true and correct, IMO, to suggest that if we are to eat meat we need to accept what that means. Our current society that almost 'pretends' that meat is not animal flesh is absurd and unhealthy... but on the other hand, to suggest that we need to slaughter our own animal with our bare hands is kinda silly. Tools ARE our human version of claws and teeth ;-)
Simon: I don't quite understand what relative differences you are talking about. Sure, there is our disconnect from the hunt/slaughter of our meat food, but really, through most of the first world we are disconnected from our food sources as a matter of course. That being said, what would be the relative differences between a primitive hunter-gatherer killing and eating an antelope compared to a lion doing the same? I, personally, see no difference, but I would be interested to hear if you do.
tp
Hi TP. The relevant differences between a primitave hunter gatherer society and animals are there. The depth of our rational ability for example. What I was trying to say, however, is that todays society has many relevant differences or are we to say that we have no relevant differences than a primitave hunter gatherer society?
We have many relevant similaraties with animals and that is part of the reason that I don't think we should capatalise of off their misuse, however, the relevant differences that exist, especially in relation to how we act towards other creatures, are still there. When a male lion begins a relationship with a female lion he eats any of her previous cubs. If this is not a relevant difference are we (men)then to eat the previous childeren of women that we have a relationship with and there be no moral conflict?
First, again, I completely agree that we should not 'capitalize of off thier misuse': the question is why is eating animals misuse? If the abusive behavior is removed from the issue (which in the modern day is hard to imagine, granted) then where does 'misuse' come into it? Thus the question about a lion hunt versus a man hunt.
I also question the validity of most of the 'relative differences' we assume. We know that animal behaviors (such as a lion killing the offspring of his mate and another male) are evolutionarily adaptive -- that is why the behavior is prevelant. It is also why infanticide is common in primitive societies (and our 'rationality' is why many of those societies consider personhood to start at age two or age four. Just as we think it starts at conception (I disagree) or birth (my personal belief). Different circumstances, different adaptive responses.)
We spend a lot of time and energy proving to ourselves how different we are from other animals and other (primitive) peoples. Our 'rationality' being the biggest -- and quite frankly we have No idea how rational other species are! Nor can we say, absolutely, that we do anything that is founded in rationality -- because there are ALSO reasonable biological/sociological explanations for the same behaviors.
Anyway, we are way off topic, now. :-) I still think that vegetarianism is a laudable response to modern corporatist abuses -- when it is possible. But I do not believe that it is any more moral than any other choice that removes support from those abusive systems (ie, (REAL) organics, humanely hunting or raising our own foods.)
tp
Simon, I think you assumption that privitive hunter gatherer societies had (have) a shallow depth of reasoning is not supportable.
(Totally unrelated to the debate- the bit about male lions eating the cubs has always frightened me. I used to work in a shelter and there are a few men out there who may not literaly eat the kids, but- . . . obviously "what comes naturally" isn't always a good thing.)
Just a quick post 'cause I've got essays comming out my ears at the moment!
I do agree with TP that we've gotten way off topic here. What I think the issue is is do animals have rights and if so what are those rights and what are the reasons that we give them those rights.
Also with the rationalism comment. I don't suppose that previous societies were less rational just that we use our rational ability differently now with different intentions in mind.
I think ren.kat that if you have a look at some of the comments I've posted on your blog you'd see how much weight I give to the vedas. What do the vedas say about societies from previous yugas? I agree with them there so I don't think the depth of reasoning was less in previous epochs.
Whoa! I apologise...
First to Simon, for not directly addressing his post, and then to ren.kat and tp for the offence...
I wasn't calling ANYONE immoral or wrong. It just felt to me from the language in these comments that there definitely was an emotional element to the discussion.
Of course I wasn't seriously suggesting bare handed slaughter! That would be like saying if you want to eat nuts, you should only pick them off a tree! Silly indeed...
I was paraphrasing Plutarch in an effort to show, as he was, that the biological argument (we're built to eat meat) is spurious in relation to killing animals...
again... I'm sorry (and shamed)
Oh, stop that Evenstar! :-)
If you ever hear the words 'for shame' come out of my mouth, its a sure sign of tongue in check tease :-)
Simon: you know, we have been avoiding the concept of animal rights for the entire discussion -- but that really is at the heart of it -- perhaps a future entry? (for one of us!)
tp
First time here.....one tangetial note about plants - myth busters were trying to bust a myth about plants, feeling and emotion :)
It was really amusing to see countenance of the guys trying to "harass" a plant by physical and non-physical means and measure the reaction :)
Post a Comment