It's okay to eat farm animals because we breed them for this purpose.

This argument is saying that it is morally right to kill animals purely because we have an intention or imposed purpose for them. It is also implying that if we have a purpose for them, we can’t change it and in fact, aren’t even required to if it is morally wrong.

Now for this argument to be true it must extend to other species and situations i.e. humans. For example, throughout history people were often bred to be slaves with many never knowing any other kind of existence. Is this morally right because others in a position of power intended another being to be bred as a slave? Of course not. Something immoral doesn’t become moral based on another person's intended purpose for that being. If we decided tomorrow that the purpose of people with severe intellectual disabilities was to provide organs for the rest of society, would this be right? No. The purpose was something we imposed with no thought of morality.

Now some will say that humans ‘created’ many of these animals (i.e. pets and farm animals) thereby justifying their usage. However, selective breeding doesn't equate to creation. If someone did the same with humans, overtime people could look quite different but they would still be humans with the same rights as you and I. But despite this, whether we created them or not, it does not justify their usage. If we were truly able to create a human we could not morally treat them as we currently do animals. What is important is that they are still sentient beings who can suffer and therefore have a right to live.

At this point most omnivores will say 'It’s different because where human and they’re animals' but this is a completely separate argument based on speciesism and requires a separate debate, not one about purpose or who created what.

It is obviously clear that just because we selectively breed a living being (which is immoral) it does not give us the right to eat them nor are we justified in doing so just because we have invented a purpose for them that is completely imposed.

Why can’t Vegans eat eggs from their own pet chickens?

In order for animals to be truly liberated they cannot be considered property as money will always override welfare. The idea that we have a moral obligation to a commodity doesn’t work. Would you afford your car rights? No.

Regardless of how well treated the vegan’s chickens are, the vast majority of people will not treat them in this way. So the price we pay for animal ownership is that millions of chickens die every year in horrendous conditions.

Captive chickens (even free range) are still more susceptible to disease, fungus and attack from predators. As well as this, you are depriving a sentient being from leading a self directed life. The chickens become completely dependent on you for their shelter, food and care, as you manipulate their environment to suit your needs i.e. eggs.

Why can’t these animals be free? Or in the case of domestic chickens, why must they be continually bred into slavery? Eggs are not a necessity; they’re a pleasure (for some). Therefore chickens have a right to be free or in the case of domestic chickens, not to be bred into such an existence.

Now many people will say, “But my chickens are happy, I give them everything they need and they don’t know any better.” Firstly who are we to decide or know exactly what they need or want? Chickens are sentient beings with a right to a self directed life. It is true that they may not know any better, but nor did Jim Carrey’s character in the Truman Show. Truman had everything he needed and he was happy before finding out his life was a carefully constructed TV show. Does that mean it was morally right to do this to Truman? No. Truman has the right to make his own way in the world. Sure, he may make mistakes and take risks but they’re his choices to make, not ones to be dictated by others. All animals can make choices despite how ‘stupid’ some people think they are. They choose where to go, where to sleep, where to nest, when to play, to sleep, to eat, who to bond with, the list goes on. Even people with profound intellectual disabilities make choices, choices they can’t communicate easily. They retract from things, they pursue things, they make noises, they remain silent etc. Over time we try to learn what they are telling us but all the while they are making choices.

Now this doesn’t mean we let all chickens loose if we know that it is highly likely they will die due to their domestication, over breeding and the fact that they have no natural environment to return to. In this case, they would need to be cared for until they die out naturally.

It is therefore permissible for a vegan abolitionist to care for a rescued chicken but not to breed them. Now technically if an unfertilized egg is found as a side affect, and this was not encouraged to occur and has been discarded by the chicken, then morally yes a person could eat this egg but of course they would cease to be vegan. However, if a person had a leg removed due to a car accident, would you eat the person’s leg as it is merely a side affect left to waste? Would you harvest the eggs from a woman who is brain dead? I personally would not. It is obviously disrespectful and sends the wrong message but most importantly, these things are still their possession.

This is indeed a grey area for some people but this does not negate everything else I have stated in this blog. For example, most people believe killing humans is wrong but people argue whether capital punishment is morally right. Just because we can’t agree where to draw the line this doesn’t mean that we can all start killing each other and think that it’s morally permissible.

In the end these scenarios (that meat-eaters generally pose) are not helpful or relevant to the fact that killing animals is morally wrong.

Why not wool? It’s just like getting a haircut.

On the way to a work function this week I discovered that two of my work colleagues are vegetarians. However after a little further discussion I found out that in fact one was pescatarian. There was a fourth colleague present who began asking me about veganism. When I explained that I didn't consume or wear any animal products including wool, she asked: 'Why not wool? It’s just like getting a haircut.'

The process involved in shearing a sheep is certainly not like any haircut I've received. I don't recall a dog chasing me down the street biting at my legs, herding me into the hairdressers. Nor do I recall the hairdresser pinning me to the ground while they manhandled my head. But perhaps she frequents a different hairdresser to me.

In order for wool to end up on your back, sheep are firstly deprived of the right to a self directed life, they are, put simply, enslaved. Sheep are kept in fenced enclosures that leave them susceptible to death through fire, flood, exposure and predators. They are mutilated through a process called ‘Mulesing’ were they have their tails cut off with no anaesthetic, with many leading to infection. Finally, the sheep are sold for their flesh, where they endure long journeys in cramped conditions, often dying from suffocation or through being crushed. When they get to the slaughterhouse the misery only continues.

Sheep endure this life of slavery for no legitimate reason. This is not out of necessity, this is not a case of life or death. There are alternatives to wool that do not use animals, it is merely produced for our pleasure. Sheep are sentient beings who can suffer as we can suffer. Sheep have the potential to lead rich fulfilling lives which we deprive them of. We therefore have a moral obligation to stop this.

By purchasing wool I would be creating demand which feeds supply. If people stopped buying wool the industry would shift to the products that people bought instead. This is basic economics.

Let me be clear, if there were better conditions for sheep this wouldn’t convince me to purchase wool. The fact that sheep are enslaved and considered property is immoral and unnecessary. During times of widespread human slavery activists didn’t argue for better conditions, they demanded the abolition of slavery. This is no different. Slavery cannot be justified for pleasure or convenience.