What Arguments Should Vegans Use to Make Their Case?

Share This Story

At least five times a week, I get some version of the following question:

In arguing for veganism, should we stay with just the moral argument and is it somehow “wrong” or “selling out” to rely on the arguments based on human health and the environment?

I am going to do a podcast on this in the near future but I wanted to make one point clear now: the lines between these arguments is not as bright as you might think in that health and environmental arguments have moral dimensions.

When I talk about animal rights, I emphasize the moral argument based on a reinterpretation of the western philosophical tradition. I also discuss the spiritual component of Ahimsa or nonviolence which, for me, has been an important part of my veganism for the past 28 years. The spiritual component is certainly not necessary to get to an abolitionist conclusion; I do not rely on it, for instance, in the philosophical argument that I make in Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?. But my commitment to nonviolence is a significant part of my thinking.

I also talk about health and the environment as part of the moral/spiritual analysis.

We have a moral obligation that we owe to ourselves to be healthy; ingesting products that cause us harm is a form of violence we inflict on ourselves. The empirical evidence becomes stronger each day that animal products are not only not needed for health; they actually cause harm to our bodies in all sorts of ways. Even small amounts of animal products can be harmful. Just as we have a moral obligation not to smoke cigarettes (even a “few”), we have an obligation to make sure that the things we put in and on our bodies (remember that what you put on your skin gets into your body!) do not cause harm. We owe this obligation not only to ourselves, but to the humans and nonhumans who love us and who depend on us.

Similarly, although I do not believe that we can have moral obligations that we owe directly to nonsentient beings, we certainly have an obligation to all of the sentient beings that live in the nonsentient environment. Indeed, because there are so many sentient beings who inhabit the environment, it is difficult to see the environment as nonsentient in any way that affect our moral obligations. A tree may not be sentient in the sense of being perceptually aware, but there are many sentient beings who live in or on the tree or who depend on the tree. And all sentient beings–human and nonhuman–depend on the environment for a healthy ecosystem. Destruction of the environment raises many serious moral and spiritual questions. An animal-based agriculture is destroying the environment and all of the sentients therein.

A common objection to veganism is that if we all ate a plant diet, we would have to cultivate more land and that this would result in our killing more sentient nonhumans. But that is not true. At present, we feed most plant food to animals, who require pounds and pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of flesh. If we ate the plants directly, we would need fewer plants and we would not need to destroy ecosystems so that we can have more grazing land.

So, in the end, although I maintain that the moral argument in favor of animal rights and the spiritual argument in favor of nonviolence are the most important notions, we also have moral obligations to ourselves (and to the humans and nonhumans who depend on us) to maintain and improve our health and obligations to humans and nonhumans not to destroy the environment.

As I said at the outset, I will do a podcast soon. But I have to finish the final work on my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which Columbia University Press will be publishing in May. So I may not be doing as much blogging, but I should finish that up soon and be back in full force.

So, if you are not vegan, go vegan. It really is easy. It is better for our health. It is better for the planet. But, most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do. We all say we reject violence. Let’s take what we say seriously. Let’s take an important step to reduce violence in the world starting with what we put in our mouths or on our bodies.

Photo: John Leach

Share This Story

`
ElaineVigneault's picture

Instead of arguing which arguments vegans should use, I'll just put a few arguments out there...

1) All animals deserve the right to live without being tortured by humans. Simple as that.

2) Meat, dairy, and egg production are bad for the environment . More info here: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/11-articles-about-meat-the-environment /

3) Veganism is the logical extension of justice and fairness: http://veganvideo.org /

4) Vegans and vegetarians are typically healthier than nonvegans.

kippers's picture

I have only fairly recently come across the abolitionist approach to animal rights and after listening to the thought provoking pod casts of Gary Francione and reading the articles on his website it seems to me that a more accurate name for the movement you are advocating would be:

The abolition of all domesticated animals (apart from humans) approach.

I have tried to get an answer to this question from Gary Francione himself but without success. I would appreciate it if you or someone else who is part of this movement could answer if this is a fair evaluation of your position or have I misunderstood?

Cheers
Kipppers

FredTheViking's picture

Hi Kippers,

I have been reading your other comments and I think I would start by offer a definition of domesticate.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/domesticate

3.(transitive) To adapt to live with humans.
The Russian claims to have successfully domesticated foxes.

Humans are the ones that domestic non-human animals . So non-human animals are domesticated in the sense they are under control human or easily control by humans. Which means that non-human domestic animals are essential a slave to a human or a group of them.

When the word domestic is applied to a human, it means that human belongs in a certain place or location. But you can look the meaning of the word yourself if you don't believe me.

Domesticating human, would suggest that human being in question is being made more civilized. Domesticating a non-human, suggests that the animal is being brought under the control and other human being. I hope this clears things up for you.

Thanks,

Kris

Thanks,

Kris

neon-armadillo's picture

Ahimsa is a word used in certain Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and especially Jainism. In Vedic times, Hinduism had no quarrel with eating meat or with animal sacrifice . Hindu sects that continue in the Vedic tradition, notably in Nepal, continue with their practices of animal sacrifice to this day.

It was the Jains who had an issue with animal sacrifice, and it is the Jains who may be credited with first developing ahimsa as an element in religious belief. Monastic Jains sometimes took ahimsa to its logical extreme, ending their lives in ritual suicide by self-starvation. It is a practice that sometimes still occurs today. Historically, Jains have had some curious ideas: for instance, the belief that women were karmically impure because of their menstrual blood. There is an interesting comparison to be made between Jainism, with its blood= murder belief, and certain abolitionist animal rights groups, with their meat =murder belief. Jains, like many Eastern religions, believe in reincarnation. Some Jains refuse to wash for fear of killing body lice or other parasites that live on their bodies . Their practice of ahimsa forbids any action that will harm another living creature.

It is odd that Mr. Francione needs to preface his comments with a reference to ahimsa. It makes him sound as if he is trying to sell a religious belief, or as if he perhaps considers veganism a religious calling. Whatever it is, not all of us believe in reincarnation. Perhaps if you are a Jain you have valid reason for worrying about being reincarnated as a body louse. Those of us who do not believe in reincarnation are not apt to share that fear.

VeganToSaveTheWorld's picture

Why be Vegan?

Eating Vegan saves more land, energy , and water than any other choice you can make. That's because livestock eat several times more grain than they produce as meat . So raising livestock uses:

-several times as much land to grow the grain to feed them
-several times as much energy to harvest the grain and transport it
-several times as much water to grow the grain and to water the animals
-several times as much pesticides, etc.
-Worldwide petroleum reserves would be exhausted in 11 years if the rest of the world ate like the U.S. The least energy-efficient plant food is 10 times as efficient as the most efficient meat food. A nationwide switch to -a pure vegetarian diet would allow us to cut our oil imports by 60%.

Over half of the water used in the U.S. is used to grow feed for livestock. It takes 100 times as much water to produce meat than to produce wheat. The water required to produce a day's diet for a typical American is 4,000 gallons. (It's 1,200 for vegetarians and 300 for vegans .) Compared to a vegan diet, three days of a typical American diet requires as much water as you use for showering all year (assuming you shower every day).

U.S. Livestock produce 250,000 pounds of waste per second -- 20 times as much as humans. A large feedlot produces as much waste as a large city, but without a sewage system. Animal waste washed into rivers and lakes causes increased nitrates, phosphates, ammonia, and bacteria, and decreases the oxygen content. This kills plant and animal life. The meat industry account for three times as much harmful organic waste as the rest of the industries in the U.S. combined.

It takes ten times as much land to produce food for an average American compared to a pure vegetarian. An acre of land can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes, but only 165 pounds of beef. In the U.S., 260 million acres of forest have been destroyed for use as agricultural land to support our meat diet (over 1 acre per person). Since 1967, the rate of deforestation has been one acre every five seconds. For every acre cleared for urban development, seven acres are cleared to graze animals or grow feed for them.

Around 85% of topsoil loss is directly associated with raising livestock. The USDA says crop productivity is down 70% as a result of topsoil loss. It takes nature 500 years to build an inch of topsoil. Vegan diets make less than 5% of the demands on the soil as meat-based diets.

Bea Elliott's picture

I agree totally that we have a responsibility to create a just and sustainable world. And putting our efforts towards a peaceful planet is our greatest challenge. I am often frustrated by so many naysayers like the previous poster, who predict gloom and doom at the thought of change . As if we've reached the apex of everything that is good. It just isn't so.

Using Others is just not the way we will advance or evolve. It is an archaic notion that we can continue to breed, feed and kill billions of innocent beings without repercussions to our physical and spiritual health or without consequence to the environment .

That we attempt to rectify our world and make things better for all is not "rose colored glasses or Poly Anna" it is CIVILIZATION.
And its time is long overdue!

There are many technologies yet to be part of the solution. Urban farming, hydroponics, growing crops on sea barges, humanure are but a few options towards creating an abundant and compassionate existence.

The world is a wonderful place - But ideas that it can't be made better though peace and nonviolence is not only absurd but dangerously shortsighted. Indeed peace is the only way we ever will survive. And peace does begin with what's on your plate.

Want to save the world? Eat like you mean it. Go Vegan

candace's picture

I once received an e-mail from a vegan and she thought that pigs, cows and sheep were "persons" and shouldn't be harmed or kept in confinement but I made her mad because I disagreed with her and she said she hated 99.99% of all humans and she would like to exterminate each and everyone of them yet she loved animals , Can someone explain how someone could say such a thing while claiming to be a vegan? Do they really love animals more than humns???

Bea Elliott's picture

Hi candace! I would agree that animals - pigs, cows and sheep are "persons" in the sense that they possess a life and an awareness of that life. My belief is too, that every person should be allowed to live the lives they own.

As far as the vegan that you spoke with, I'm certain she does not represent "all" vegans by a long shot! And no, it's not a case of "loving animals more than humans", but rather to have respect for the lives of *every* being. I have found that the values (most) vegans live by, are ones that are inclusive of ALL rather than of just a few. It's a much more generous "love"... And isn't the goal to create a kinder world? :)

ElizabethCollins's picture

I agree that the moral arguments in favour of animal rights and nonviolence are the fundamentally important points to emphasize when advocating for veganism . That is the best way to achieve the necessary shift in our thinking towards every other sentient being on the planet, to educate ourselves about what is morally right, and to illustrate how each one of us can begin to act on the fundamental belief that we all share; that violence is not justified, especially for trivial reasons such as taste, convenience, or other pleasures. We simply have to continue educating ourselves and our communities using the simple truths that we have no right to use other animals as a means to our end, and that inflicting violence and unnecessary pain, suffering and death on them, simply because we can or because we like the taste or whatever, is not the right thing to do.

The fact that veganism is also better for the environment and our health are extremely positive elements also, but the shift in thinking must come from the heart, from our recognition of the moral personhood of other animals, the acknowledgment that we have no right to USE them and all the wonderful benefits that come along from that knowledge are great things in themselves.

User Removed's picture

I'm curious, what part of leveling a forest for agricultural use, thus wiping out the natural habitat of wild animals is non violent?

From the moment you plant a seed in the ground, you are in competition with every other living thing that would consume your crop before you have a chance to harvest it. The farmer that brings the crop to market engages in a never ending war against every living thing that would endanger the crop. The typical instrument of war is chemical weapons to wipe out every last bug, mouse, rabbit, ground squirrel, or whatever else is a threat to the crops. What part of this process do you consider non violent?

Plants require nitrogen to grow. Without it, cropland would be utterly barren in about two years. Nitrogen is applied liberally to the soil, where it leaches into rivers and eventually reaches the ocean . When the nitrogen hits the ocean, it causes explosive growth of red algee, stripping the waters of oxygen and killing every last marine animal in what are referred to as "dead zones". What part of this is non violent?

In 2005, the top ten sugar beet producers knocked out half a trillion pounds of sugar beets (242 million metric tons):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet

The waste from this half trillion pounds of beets is then recycled into animal feed:

http://www.feedimpex.nl /

Cattle consume around 20 pounds of feed per day, and weigh 1200 pounds at a year and a half. In other words, 73 million head of beef may be raised on the recycled waste from the sugar industry alone, without planting a single blade of grass. Approximately 600 pounds is suitable for human consumption, or 43 billion pounds worth. At 800 calories per pound, and 2000 calories per day per person, that's enough food to feed 47 million people for a year. That's free food, made entirely from recycled garbage. To replace that food source, at an average of 5 million calories per acre for the more dense calorie food plants, would require cultivating an extra 7 million acres. The hides are made into clothing. The tallow is used in a host of products. And virtually everything else is made into food for companion animals. What part of feeding and clothing 47 million people, and feeding hundreds of millions of pets , is inherantly violent?

It takes 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food from crops:

http://www.contraryinvestorscafe.com/guest_article.php?id=175&aid=392

What part of that is environmentally friendly?

Have you ever seen a calf with its guts torn out by coyotes? I have. It isn't pretty. Is that the type of "natural" death vegans advocate as the most ethical and moral for animals? Unless you've seen the results first hand, I sincerely doubt you can imagine the level of violence involved. What do you propose to do with all the livestock if veganism were universally adopted? Will you turn loose all those healthy, well fed animals, so they may slowly die of starvation and disease, or die violently of being torn to shreads by predators? Where is this on your moral compass of non violence?

I really am curious. Are you able to answer any of the above? I've yet to see any purported vegan do more than get pissy and start calling names when presented with the questions.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social

 

randomness