Who are you to tell me what's moral, you're not perfect?

It's true that moral arguments are not like mathematics where an answer can be proven beyond doubt. However, we can use logical arguments to try to convince someone that something is right or wrong. We can also draw upon people's current moral framework and highlight inconsistencies in the way they behave. The vast majority of people do not condone unnecessary cruelty and death of animals. I believe that most people already have a vegan moral framework that they don't actualize because it's inconvenient. We only have to look at the way people fetishize particular animals over others, like pets. I find it bizarre to watch animal rescue TV shows were extensive resources are used to retrieve a stray kitten from a drain, yet people are comfortable with billions of animals being slaughtered every year. Our treatment of animals is inconsistent and completely illogical. Much like the human rights movement, it was the inconsistency in the way that people were treated i.e. slavery, due to the colour of their skin. Hundreds of years ago there was no shortage of people who would try to convince you that slavery was not immoral. But the people who fought for the abolition of slavery weren't morally superior or somehow infallible, perfect or Christ-like. This didn’t matter at the time and doesn’t now. For example, a person argues that domestic violence is wrong, yet later the same person is found to have embezzled large sums of money. Does this mean that everything the person said is wrong and that domestic violence is in fact okay? Of course not. Now obviously I have a much better chance of convincing someone of my argument if I adhere to it, but in the end it doesn't matter. I may convince you that it is important to care for the environment but whether I recycle or not, it doesn’t change the fact that we should care for the environment.

Morals are always evolving and it’s only by reflecting upon our society, our behaviours and our beliefs can we move forward. Throughout history shifts towards greater equality and the reduction of cruelty have always begun with the few.

We’re at the top of the food chain!

So because we’re able to dominant animals, we find ourselves at the top of the food chain and it is therefore morally justifiable for us to inflict suffering on animals for our pleasure, entertainment or convenience? This is despite the fact that we don't require animals to lead long and happy lives, making their death and suffering completely unnecessary.

Put simply, if you are able to dominant, you are morally justified in your actions. Now obviously this argument is not accepted for the treatment of fellow humans, even though it does occur. We don't condone domestic violence, homicide, rape etc. Why than do we treat animals differently?

For a moment let's pretend this argument is sound and let's propose that one day an alien race lands on Earth. The aliens are dominant in everyway, they're smarter and stronger, and what they like most is the taste of our flesh, despite the fact that they don't need it to survive. In order to farm our flesh, humans are put in cages, mutilated, subjected to cruelty, disease, made to live in excrement, deprived of basic needs and finally killed (sometimes cruelly and sometimes quickly). Now obviously we're not happy, so we try to fight back and we try to escape, but it is completely futile. Though despite the complete horror that our lives have become, we all take comfort in the knowledge that the alien’s actions are morally justified as they are now the dominant species. Right? Wrong. The vast majority of people would not think the alien’s actions are permissible, we would consider them immoral. We are sentient beings who feel pain and who have an interest in living. Why than is it not the case for animals, they too feel pain and have an interest in living. If we think it would be immoral for another species to treat us the way we treat animals, how than can we justify their needless slaughter.

Free Range Vs. Vegan

Question 2 – 'If you could stop or at least lessen factory farming by providing market competition by consuming or eating free range eggs and meat, would you consider it?'

This is the second question my ‘Paleo Diet’ friend sent me. However, he also added ‘This is my beef about vegans. By you guys deliberately NOT consuming free range eggs, organic meats etc. you make little pragmatic difference to stop this whole (factory) farming of animals.’ He also states that if free range products were more readily available he could make a ‘more’ ethical decision.

So put another way, I should buy into a lesser form of cruelty in order to create more demand, thereby supporting a free range market thereby reducing suffering? The first point I have to make is that free range farming is still cruel and not morally justifiable as the animals die in the same slaughterhouse anyway. Therefore, this would encourage people to still do something that is immoral. By not buying any animal products, animals will never be bred for my consumption to begin with. This is perhaps the most significant difference any one person can make to the lives of farm animals. It is estimated that one vegan saves the lives of well over 100 animals every year. I therefore ask, how is Veganism not a pragmatic approach? If every vegan and vegetarian converted to free range products there would be a significant spike in demand requiring the meat industry to breed more animals. How is this the morally right thing to do? Sure, this may increase the prevalence of free range products but it will not change people's individual decisions about what they're willing to pay. It's like saying that people should buy more humane child pornography to promote child welfare reform. This is simply bizarre. Free range products in fact prolong the abolition of animal exploitation, by making people feel comfortable with cruelty, not encouraging them to think about the moral issues. Abolition will only come about through nonviolent vegan education.

Promoting veganism does not inhibit the meat industry’s move towards free range farming, in fact it promotes it. The meat industry aren’t going to say ‘well were not going to make any reforms because veganism is so unattainable’ instead the meat industry will offer ‘concessions’ to gain our dollar e.g. larger cages, free range farming etc. In fact, the meat industry wants the vegans and vegetarians to convert to free range as they want a larger consumer base and people are willing to pay more for free range. These so-called ‘concessions’ are in their financial interest, they have even found that many factory farming practices are not cost effective. All welfare reform to date has either been cost neutral or financially advantageous to the meat industry, but there is only so far this can go. At a certain point the welfare of farm animals will cost more than people are willing or able to pay. Therefore the only way to stop the cruelty and the exploitation of animals is through veganism. Veganism eliminates demand, encouraging business people to invest in different industries.

For example, if you went to the store to buy chocolate and there were only two kinds, one sourced from 100% child slave labour and the other sourced from 50%. If we are to believe my friend, we should purchase chocolate sourced from just 50% children slave labour. However I would argue that the moral and pragmatic thing to do is to not purchase either.

The Paleo Diet proves that killing animals is morally justifiable

A friend of mine who is on the Paleo Diet asked me a series of questions regarding Veganism, this is the first.

Question: Assuming grains and lentils are bad for you as they are essentially sugar, which causes an insulin spike, are you happy to eat them?

I will answer the question directly but I will also discuss whether the Paleo Diet proves that killing animals is morally justifiable as this is really the subtext.

On average vegans live between 3 and 9 years longer than the rest of society and have reduced incidents of disease. Now that’s pretty good in my book. So yes, I will still eat my grains, legumes and a healthy all round vegan diet.

But let’s assume that the Paleo Diet is as good, if not better than Veganism. Considering things like general happiness, family genetics, social inequality and our environment also play a significant role, we can’t morally justify the pain and suffering inflicted on animals just in the hope that we might live a couple more years. Drinking alcohol, staying up late, working too hard, stress, using microwaves are all bad for us but most of us still do them. Not to mention all the hormones and preservatives that people consume through meat and other products. When there are so many factors to a healthy life, how someone can base their morality on just one factor isn’t logical. Living healthily is a balancing of risks.

The fact of the matter is that we can live long healthy lives as Vegans, and it is therefore unnecessary to take an animal’s life. Even if it was true that we are designed to eat a Paleo diet (which there is evidence to the contrary), we actually don’t need to. To base morals purely on evolution is ridiculous. Evolution doesn’t have morals, we do. For example, it is generally accepted that men have an evolutionary trait (or a predisposition) to be more aggressive. Does this make it morally right for me to physically hurt others? No. We defy our evolutionary instincts in a range of areas for the sake of our morals.

Put simply, eating meat is speciesist. For example, if we learnt that eating a human heart cured all disease and enabled you to live longer, could we begin tearing out people’s hearts? No. But we would if it was an animal. Why? I would argue that there is no moral distinction between humans and other sentient beings. Morals are only meaningful if applied logically and consistently. Even the law says we have a moral obligation to not inflict unnecessary suffering on animals, yet we do it everyday.

In the end Veganism is the morally right thing to do, it reduces suffering, saves lives and is the most significant change any one person can make to help the environment (reducing your footprint by 40%). On the other hand, The Paleo Diet is extremely destructive to the environment and to the lives of other sentient beings.

Is there really a choice?

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.