I believe that an open mind naturally leads to skepticism of religion. Theists will object by asserting that even atheists have faith. If they are suggesting faith in the power of reason, then I guess they are correct.An open mind does not naturally lead to veganism. However, an open mind naturally leads to one of three conclusions:
1. Specieism is inherently wrong, we have no right to consume other sentient beings and veganism should be our moral baseline.
2. Specieism is not inherently wrong, we have the right to consume other sentient beings and we really don't care about the treatment of nonhuman animals; or
3. There is no inherent right or wrong, no person has any rights and, again, we really don't care about the treatment of nonhuman animals.
This is by no means a false trichotomy. If you care about nonhuman animals, you simply should not consume them, regardless of whether you believe in inherent rights or not. If you profess to care about welfare and yet persist in consuming animals, you are being morally schitzophrenic. Before you tell me I am mistaken, please watch this:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/slides/theory1.html
17 comments:
TAM, the pictures of the sheep being slaughtered are horrible. Maybe meat packages at the supermarket should show pictures of the animal they came from, show how it lived, and how it died. Some countries already show pictures of cancerous lung tumors on cigarette packages, so why not?
I agree with a lot of the points made in this presentation. However I am not quite ready to give up dairy, eggs and wool... I think there is a way it can be done ethically and with respect on small local farms. Also, I have a couple comments:
1. The great apes are endangered. If we don't put at least some in zoos or in wildlife refuges, they may soon become extinct because of poaching and habitat destruction. Time is literally running out for them.
2. The best diet for a cat, biologically speaking, is meat. They are strict carnivores. Those of us who keep cats as pets have no choice but to feed them animal products, in the absence of mice in the basement. Feeding grain to a cat is unhealthy. Dogs can easily digest oats and wheat, cats cannot. (And neither of them can digest corn.)
3. Many domestic species have been modified so much through thousands of years of breeding that they cannot survive on their own in the wild. Should we stop breeding them even if it means allowing those species to go extinct? Don't we have a responsibility to at least help these species revert back to a form similar to that of their wild ancestors through 'un-breeding'?
4. In some remote areas of the world, such as the highlands of Papua New Guinea or the Arctic, protein from plant sources is extremely rare, and hunting and fishing are vital for survival. Should we forcibly relocate these populations 'for their own good' in order to stop them from hunting?
Note that I am not saying any of this to be smart ass or anything. It wouldn't really bother me to give up meat tomorrow, there's plenty of other tasty things I can eat. But I'm curious about your answers.
Gun-Toter, I don't profess to be an expert on any of this but my thoughts are as follows:
The best diet for a cat, biologically speaking, is meat I no of nothing which contradicts that assertion
Should we stop breeding them even if it means allowing those species to go extinct? Absolutely. Non-existence is vastly preferable to a life of misery. Noone can seriously argue with that.
Should we forcibly relocate these populations 'for their own good' in order to stop them from hunting? I don't have any problem with native populations who hunt for survival. However, for anyone living in a modern society, consuming nonhuman animals is unnecessary and veganism is (at least arguably) the best choice from both a health and environmental perspective. However, my preference for veganism is an ethical decision and is not based on the fact that I believe it is necessarily the best dietary choice.
Schizophrenic seems a word chosen to end discussion. My morals are full of grey.
I think we should be allowed to eat animals who'd try to eat us if given the chance. It only seems fair. Yummy... Lion anyone? :p~
And what about bugs? Do bugs count? Lots of cultures eat insects, even moderns ones like South Korea. Is eating insects considered "meat"?
I always think of the poor sad bug in the animated film Naussica Valley of the Wind. Bugs have feelings too, even cartoon ones.
We probably shouldn't eat them either. In fact, anything that's living, organic or otherwise, is probably immoral to eat. I think we should just not eat anything.
Perpetual diet. That's my motto!
Just kidding. I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I found a comment on this post on the philosophy reddit (by Brian) and thought it was worthy of posting on this thread:
I think that this clearly is a false trichotomy. It leaves out several other possibilities:
Speciesism is inherently wrong, but (some) animals are not sentient. After all, he's making this same distinction in assuming veganism is acceptable, concluding (reasonably enough) that plants aren't sentient. However, this is still speciesism - he's just holding that it we don't have to care about the treatment of nonsentient animals. There are other places to draw a line: why not go further and adopt Jain Vegetarianism? I'd say it's reasonable to assume higher animals are sentient, but veganism isn't the only place such a line may be drawn. Some might draw it at insects, or at fish, or even higher.
Speciesism is wrong, but not very wrong. We care about the treatment of animals, but far less than we care about people. I'm certainly speciesist to a degree - if faced with the choice between 100 cows dying and 1 human dying, I'll choose the cows every time. If this is to be truly presented as a binary choice between speciesism and non-speciesism, then speciesism wins every time for me. In practice, there's room for shades of grey. We may value a cows life below a human's life, but trading for a human's comfort instead may be a different matter. However, we are back to where exactly to draw the line rather than hard dichotomys, and I think there are certainly those who consider eating meat no more immoral than, say, buying a TV instead of giving the money to a starving man. In practice, everyone's selfish to some degree, and animals are generally considered worth less than humans.
Speciesism is wrong, but there is a corresponding positive benefit that outweighs it. This is prevalent in issues like animal testing for medicine for insance. Less so for food, but there's a slippery slope argument (social acceptance of this will lead to reduced support for animal testing, which may ultimately cause death of humans). OK - this is not a terribly good or prevalent argument, but I'm just throwing it in to demonstrate other potential possibilities in the trichotomy.
There is a strong moral argument for vegetarianism, but ultimately, presenting it as such a black and white distinction is counterproductive. In a choice between speciesism and non-speciesism, I'd choose speciesism every time because I do think humans are more important than monkeys, monkeys more than cows, cows more than fish and so on. This is an issue that is better approached as a matter of degree, rather than in absolutes.
"Non-existence is vastly preferable to a life of misery."
Personally I'd rather feel pain and be alive than be dead and feel no pain. If I had the choice. Of course, I agree that animals in captivity do not have the ability to make that choice.
But I feel that since we are such a powerful agent of extinction (poor dodo...), that we have a moral obligation to protect biodiversity, and preserve as many species as possible, even species that were artificially selected. So instead of letting these domesticated species go extinct, I think the correct approach is that those species should be protected, until they have reached a state where they can reintegrate the wild.
Hi TAM-
Say, I find veganism very appealing. I feel nearly the same as the guy with the badass blog name; Gun-toting Atheist (I don't know why, but it gave me a good laugh :). I could drop meat tomorrow, knowing I could find the resources I needed to get by in my local market (it's too bad I'm surrounded by Wal-Mart though). I've done my research on how certain foods can be combined to replace protein strains found in meat (which humans thrive on for building muscle etc), and was wondering if you had anything about that, that you could post??? Just to knock out all the people bitching and complaining about the dietary aspect of becoming veganism.
Coincidentally, my fiance is one of those nay-sayers. It's not that he doesn't support veganism, it's that he always comes up with really good arguments to derail all the hard work I put into coming up with GOOD arguments. Your posts help :-) So... next question... "If all animal cruelty, and mistreatment of animals could be eliminated, would you still be a vegan? Or have desire to eat meat? Since there would be no form mistreatment of animals?" (Does that make sense? )
Additionally, I was watching Ellen, and she had author Jonathan Safran of "Eating Animals," and his suggestion was if you are thinking of going Vegan, that to start with eliminating eggs is actually easier then starting with eliminating meat.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3082888/
P.S- Of course my answer in regards to his question was "That's unrealistic, considering anytime a farmer needed to make a profit, you know one would give in and slaughter an animal in order to make more bi-products to sell." And to say that one would never break down and do such a thing, is unrealistic. So... TAM, your thought if you will??
THANKS!!
I'm not speciest. In fact, I would quite happily eat a human if they didn't have such poor diets (probably taste of chemicals).
Exactly how am I to distinguish between sentient animals and those that do not have the ability to feel and perceive? Stick the hook in the mouth part way and then gauge the reaction?
CKDC, I would say that question does not apply to 95% of the nonhuman animals that you consume. My approach is that when I am presented with a choice, I will choose to avoid consuming a nonhuman animal. I am not approaching veganism with a religious fervour and, of course, I do not expect any karmic consequences to arise from my decision.
Janelle, I am far from an expert on veganism and I want to avoid coming across as a preacher on this issue. As far as the dietary aspect is concerned, Gary Francione has referred me to Dr. Joel Fuhrman's "Eat to Live". The only other advice I can give you is to seek nutritional advice from unbiased sources (i.e. those who are not committed from the outset to the inclusion/exclusion of animal based protien in our diets). That being said, I think it is fair to say that a vegan diet [supplemented with vitamin D (d2 = plant source, d3 = animal source), B12, and a DHA supplement from a micro-algae source] is a healthy choice. Whether it is "healthier" than a diet supplemented with animal proteins, I can't say and, to be frank, I really don't care. I am assuming that you are approaching your child bearing years and cannot afford to be as cavalier about your health as I can be.
The question: If all animal cruelty, and mistreatment of animals could be eliminated, would you still be a vegan? is answered differently by animal rights advocates (like Francione who say yes) and animal welfare advocates (like Peter Singer who say probably not). I think the key to answering this question is whether you have any moral aversion to eating a nonhuman animal that has enjoyed its life and is then killed painlessly. I tend to agree with Francione who would argue that a sentient being has an interest in continuing its existence. In other words, taking a nonhuman animal's life so that you can consume it is included within my definition of suffering. If we could artificially grow meat tissue, I wouldn't have any problem eating it. I also would not have a problem (in principle) with someone eating the carcass of an animal that was killed accidentally - the roadkill analogy is favored by many carnivores when debating with vegans. However, I am really not interested in eating any more carcasses - regardless of where they come from. I did it for 41 years and I am hoping for another 41 on the other side of the fence.
I am in the child bearing years. However, my desire to have children is lacking. I'd rather spend the best years (selfish as it sounds) of my life, focusing on developing my brain (getting an education) and supporting those who are less fortunate then me; whether being an activist, becoming a volunteer animal rescuer; or, researching and educating others about taking better care of our environment and earth. If I ever have a child, I think I might adopt? (Because I'm selfish, and I want to be a hot wife for my handsome man for the rest of my life--not that you needed to know that;)
I am specifically interested in eating the healthiest foods possible, in order to live the longest life possible. I have a sincere passion for animals, as well as respect. To me, modern society has progressed so much and provides us with too many options, for the average intelligent person to not stop and make a better decision about the food they eat. Hmmmm... what will it be today? Processed hamburgers (made from 1000+ cows), deep fried processed chicken covered in cheese and bacon and fried again? I mean COME ON PEOPLE!!!
I am new to being an atheist (at least, admitting it), I understand you may not be a Vegan expert, but I simply value your opinion. Plus, I know you study it and link with key people like Dr. Francine (who I follow because of you); this simply reassures me that you are getting your information from a reliable and knowledgeable (trustworthy) source.
Thank you for your insight and addressing my fiancés question. Just know, I told him basically what you told me. It comes back to a person’s ethical baseline.
While I am not a hunter and despise the zoo and any mistreatment of animals, I do not see the moral issue with the diet that our species has enjoyed for the past 200,000 years. Our planet is full of animals eating animals and humans appear to be the only species that is considering the moral dilemma. There is no doubt that we can do much to improve the treatment of our livestock but we really do have bigger moral fish to fry when it comes to our own species. As somewhat of an Atheist Missionary myself, I find your stance on this issue rather dogmatic. No offense.
atlasmann, if you see nothing wrong with consuming livestock, why would have any concern about their treatment before you eat them? I don't get it.
TAM, you said 'Non-existence is vastly preferable to a life of misery. Noone can seriously argue with that.'
So I think that explains atlasmann's position; making livestock suffer is worse than eating them.
I have been an Atheist longer than I've been a vegan, but I have noticed a common thread. When I attended an Atheist/Humanist conference in 2004 at Harvard, most of the other people I spoke with in attendance were vegan or vegetarian -- both males and females. Not so many months later I found myself in Portland among 100s of vegans and coincidentally learned almost of of them were atheist, with a few agnostics mixed in.
As the years have gone on and I've been part of meetups and conferences and other social gatherings I find most of the time a vegan or vegetarian I'm talking to is also an Atheist or Agnostic. OF course there have been exceptions, I recently met a devout Christian whose Christianity led her to veganism (how could I support the torture and abuse of God's miracles? she said) but more or less. We're all AV's or VA's. For me I'm an Atheist before anything else, but I am also a vegan.
Just wanted to say I love you blog (because you agree with me of course)!
I'm a vegan Christian. Christian first, vegan is the adjective in this. But being Christian didn't have anything to do with my becoming vegan. Although I use my beliefs to try to convince other Christians to respect animals.
Just wanted to throw that out there. I know I am one of very few.
Post a Comment