On ‘preachy’ and ‘dogmatic’ vegans

When vegans try to talk to non-vegans about animal ethics, we are often dismissed as being preachy; we are asked not to impose “our” morality on others, as if morality is something personal that certain individuals can have a claim to. The more consistent we are about not participating in animal exploitation, and the more we speak out on the issue – no matter how politely – the more we are denigrated as being ‘absolutist’, ‘intolerant’, ‘vegangelical’, etc. We are lecture on the alleged need for moderation on the animal issue.

But why shouldn’t vegans discuss with non-vegans the latter group’s participation in something that may very well be wrong? Animal ethics, after all, is no different from any other fundamental aspect of morality – using non-humans as means to our ends is either right or wrong. It cannot be a matter of personal or cultural preference any more than basic issues involving humans. After all, no one thinks that human slavery, rape, child molestation, or spousal abuse are matters of personal opinion of preference. To treat the animal issue differently is simply speciesist.

The fact that humans have been exploiting non-humans for a long time – so very long, in fact, that we take it granted as being in the “natural” order of things – does not excuse our continuing to do it. Like scientific truth, our understanding of moral truth is constantly evolving. New evidence and considerations are brought to our attention, calling on us to re-evaluate our assumptions about ourselves and the world we live in. We now know, for instance, that humans can thrive on a plant-based diet, and we have developed acceptable alternatives to animal clothing and fabrics. So to continue to exploit animals is, at this point, to inflict needless violence on animals – something that any reasonable person will agree is undesirable. The onus is on those who participate in senseless violence to justify why they are doing it. We don’t ask non-rapists to explain why they’re abstaining from senseless violence; we shouldn’t ask it of vegans, either.

To frame the discussion in terms of vegans being ‘dogmatic’, ‘fundamentalist’, or ‘vegangelicals’ is to overlook the fact that, unlike religious dogma, veganism – and animal rights – can be defended on rational grounds. And if animal use is unjust, then it would be quite irresponsible for us not to speak out. Those who decry vegans “imposing our morals” on non-vegans rarely stop to think about how their own day-to-day actions impose extreme suffering and death on animals, and extreme degredation on the environment.

Given the pervasiveness of speciesism in our society, and the fact that most people have not had a chance to consider the need for veganism as minimal standard of decency, vegans should avoid judging non-vegans personally. But judging actions is not the same thing as judging people. The whole “please don’t judge me” way of looking at this is a thinly-veiled, narcissistic attempt to divert attention from what’s really at stake in the issue – massive violence being inflicted on vulnerable, non-human individuals who, like us, will never know or experience anything more precious than this life, here and now.

What’s wrong with eating eggs?

Breeding

 All hens used for egg-laying – including backyard and so-called ‘free-range’ hens – begin their lives at a place called a hatchery.

When birds are bred into existence for egg-laying at these places, half of them are born male. Of no use to the egg industry, and unable to grow fast enough to be profitable for meat (another breed of birds, known as ‘broilers’, are used for that purpose), the roosters are separated from their sisters and are immediately killed. The most common methods of killing include grinding up their bodies, or dumping them – still alive and conscious – into giant trash cans, where they are left to starve and/or suffocate.

 

Roosters (male chicks), of no use to the egg industry, are ‘discarded’ as trash, left to starve and/or suffocate.

For every egg-laying hen in existence, there is a male rooster who was brought into the world, only to be immediately deprived of life.

In many ways, the culling of male chicks at hatcheries vividly illustrates what is wrong with our relationship with non-humans. The prevailing social and legal norms surrounding non-humans are such that their lives do not have any inherent value; they only have economic value. Their lives are only worth the money they can rake in – for us. When there is no profit to be made from allowing them to live, we immediately ‘discard’ of them, like dirty napkins.

Use

The domestic chicken is a direct descendent of a bird known as the Red Junglefowl, believed to have originated from Southeast Asia.

Unlike the Red Junglefowl, who only lays a few eggs per year, domestic hens have been bred by humans to lay close to 300 (unfertilized) eggs per year. For a hen, laying an unfertilized egg is the biological equivalent of a human women menstruating – it’s what their bodies do in the absence of pregnancy. Because the normal female body (within a particular age bracket) is supposed to be ready to conceive, and because conception would require passing on nutrients to the zygote/fetus/baby, the female body is continuously burdened with additional nutrition that, in the absence of conception, is then “released” (via menstruation or laying an unfertilized egg). For example, human women of reproductive age require 18mg of iron daily, compared to men (and females of non-productive age), who only need 8mg daily. Extra iron is required to make up for what’s lost each month.

Just as a heavy menstrual flow would present a burden on the health of a human woman, so too does the astronomically high egg-laying rate present a burden on the health of hens. Calcium in particular seems to be lost from the high rate of egg-laying, which might explain why poor bone health is common.

This dilemna – our desire to get as many eggs as possible vs. the hens’ health and physical autonomy – is a classical example of the problem with animal use and domestication in general. All of our uses of animals – however “humane” – necessarily involve trading away their interests (no matter how vital) for our gain. Domestication is a social contract for which animals do not sign up and in which we force them to exist in a perpetual state of vulnerability. Unlike human children, who eventually grow up and become autonomous, ‘domesticated’ animals are stuck in a permanent state of dependence upon us. At any and every moment, they have to hope that we have their interests in mind – because they don’t have a lot of say if we don’t. We then go on to harm and exploit them for various purposes.

The bodies of non-humans do not exist for the use and gratification of humans. We cannot justify ‘domesticating’ and using the bodies of vulnerable animals for our gain, any more than we can justify sexually abusing children. Just as there is no way ”just” or “compassionate” way to molest children, there is no “non-abusive” way to exploit vulnerable animals for human gain. 

If you look after rescued hens, do them a favour and crack open their own eggs in front of them – they will eat them! Eating their own eggs allows hens to re-gain many of the nutrients that their bodies lose through being forced to lay so many eggs in the first place. Us (humans) eating their eggs – even from backyard-type situations – is problematic because it deprives them of nutrients that they would benefit from.

Treatment

Although better treatment would not resolve the basic problem of using non-humans as means to our ends, the reality is that all egg ‘production’ – including ‘free-range’, ‘cage-free’, etc – involves torturing hens.

The reason is simple: animals are economic commodities. Treating them better – by giving them lots of space, access to the outdoors, etc – would cost a lot of money. In a world of 7 billion hungry humans, there is simply no affordable way to ‘produce’ enough eggs while treating hens ‘nicely’.

The most common method of ‘producing’ eggs is the battery-cage system, where the hens are kept in wire mesh cages. Given the equivalent of a notebook-sized piece of paper on which to live out their entire lives, extreme psychological stress from over-crowding often leads to pecking, fighting, and even cannibalism. Feet and heads often get stuck in between the wires of the cages, causing many birds to die slowly of starvation or thirst. A lack of exercise, combined with the drain of laying an obscene number of eggs, often leads to frail bone health and even osteoporosis.

Hens crowded into battery cages. Note the frail bones and feather loss, brought about by physical deprivation and heavy laying demands.

Alternatives to the battery-cage – such as cage-free or free-range systems – are nothing more than marketing labels, and do not confer welfare benefits for animals. Cage-free egg ‘production’, for example, involves cramming hundreds of thousands of birds into a giant shed. Individual cages are replaced with one giant cage, and the over-crowding is every bit as bad. Fighting and cannibalism are prevalent, and the lack of space means that birds piss, crap, and step all over one another.

‘Free-range’ is also a meaningless label. There is no legally agreed upon (or enforceable) definition of ‘free-range’. In fact, eggs marketed as ‘free-range’ involve violence and exploitation identical to conventional methods:

 

Slaughter

The vegetarian myth – that milk and eggs don’t result in killing – is just that. Like all ‘farm’ animals, egg-laying hens are on death row. They are kept alive only as long as it is profitable to keep them alive. When the cost of feeding them out-grows the benefit derived from their egg ‘production’ (always at a fraction of their natural lifespan), they are slaughtered.

Conclusion

Most people already accept the basic ideas that should lead them – on their own – to veganism. We all agree that it’s wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering and death on animals. But eating animals and animal products (or wearing, using them, etc) is not necessary:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

Indeed, we all accept that animals are somebodies, as opposed to somethings.

The breeding and use of hens for egg-laying, with all that it involves (compromised health, suffering, and death), is a violation of their right to bodily autonomy. It necessarily involves treating sentient beings as if they were objects – something that goes against the moral norms that most of us claim to accept. Veganism bridges the moral disconnect by taking to heart the notion that animals are somebodies as opposed to somethings.

The good news is that, in the 21st century, you can have your vegan cake and eat it, too. You don’t need eggs to make delicious cakes, cookies, and cupcakes!

Other traditional dishes can also be made without eggs:

Vegan Zucchini Frittata

Scrambled Tofu

Mini Crustless Tofu Quiches

Holiday Nog

~

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. If it’s wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering and death on animals, then – by definition – we can’t justify eating, wearing, or using animals and animal products for our taste buds, convenience, sense of habit, etc.

“Veganism isn’t about giving anything up or losing anything. It is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing non-violence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable. Veganism is not a ‘sacrifice’. It is a joy.” – Gary L. Francione

On moral relativism

“I’m actually pretty sick of people uncritically buying into the fatuous New Age edict of “thou shalt not judge”, which dishonestly or confusedly conflates judgment of actions with judgment of people…

The “don’t judge” injunction is usually just a knee-jerk way of trying to shut down any kind of discussion which is too confronting. It attempts to divert attention to shaming the person who is pointing out a moral wrong, such as animal use, rather than confront the moral wrong itself. When we stop making judgments about right and wrong actions, we are really in deep trouble and have totally lost out moral compass. Some behaviours are simply *better*, morally, than others. If this fact happens to upset the comfort zone of people who wish to persist in a stage of stunted moral relativism, so what? A moral life isn’t about being comfortable. Veganism as a moral choice really is *better* than animal use. If that statement makes you feel uncomfortable, perhaps there’s good reason to feel uncomfortable, i.e. maybe that’s the voice of conscience and should be heeded.

The very idea of “thou shalt not judge” is itself a judgement! It’s saying that no judgments are allowed except for my judgement that you should not judge. It’s very controlling and repressive. Moral relativism breaks down instantly when any individual is confronted with the threat or actuality of harm to themselves or those they love. Then, there’s no doubt in their minds that some behaviours should be condemned absolutely as wrong. And… no-one, not even the most committed moral relativist or New-Ager, thinks that rape, assault or murder is ever OK when it comes to humans. So to try to justify these things for non-humans on the basis of non-judgmentalism is just speciesism.

To frame the issue in terms of everyone being “on their own journey” is another way of distracting attention away from the animals and towards ourselves. It attempts to put a romantic gloss on something that’s very ugly. It’s not about *us* and our journey; it’s about *them*, the billions of sentient beings who are enduring unimaginable suffering because of our choices. Some journeys, those that inflict suffering and death on others, should never be made.”

- Linda McKenzie

Speciesism 101

The Marriam-Webster Dictionary defines discrimination as:

“the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently”

In other words, discrimination simply means treating certain things differently.

When we discern between various categories, we need some basis on which to do so. If I go to the clothing store and buy a warm acrylic sweater rather than a light T-shirt, I probably have a reason for doing so. Perhaps my discrimination between warm and light clothing is based on the observation that it is currently mid-winter, and that warm clothing is better suited to my needs.

Discrimination on the basis of certain criteria can become problematic when the criteria in question is irrelevant. If I am on the board of admissions for a university, which criteria will I use to decide whether or not you should be admitted? If I use your marks as the basis for my decision, then that is relevant discrimination. Your academic achievement (or lack thereof) is relevant as to whether or not you deserve to be admitted. If, on the other hand, I choose to deny you admission because you are a girl, or becuase I don’t like your religion, then that is irrelevant discrimination – which is wrong. Your gender and religious beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not you deserve to be admitted.

Prejudicial discrimination, then, is the use of irrelevant criteria to deny (wholly or partially) membership in the moral community. Racism uses race; sexism uses gender; homophobia uses sexual orientation, etc.

 

Speciesism: Discrimination on the Basis of Species

Non-humans are not similar to humans in every respect. For example, they cannot use human language, or make informed choices about which political candidate is better suited to running the country. So there is nothing irrational or prejudicial about denying them the ‘right’ to an education, or the ‘right’ to vote.

Like us, however, non-humans are sentient, or subjectively aware. They are individuals (somebodies as opposed to somethings) with a sense of self and a capacity for suffering. If I kick a pig in the stomach, he or she will feel (and react to) the pain with the understanding that the pain is being imposed on him or her personally – that the pain is not happening out there somewhere. Whatever other characteristics he or she does or does not have, a sentient being, by definition, has an interest in not being subjected to violence. Sentience is therefore the only relevant characteristic when it comes to the capacity to be harmed.

Our current relationship with non-humans is predicated on the assumption that they are resources existing for our use. This allows us to disregard any and all non-human interests (no matter how vital) for any and all human interests (no matter how trivial). From the moment that we breed them into existence, to the various ways in which we rob them of basic comfort and autonomy throughout their short and miserable lives, to the final moment, when we sentence them to pre-mature death - the ‘domesticated’ non-human is stuck living his or her life on someone else’s terms.

The ownership of another sentient being is problematic precisely because it requires that a someone be treated as if they were a something. If I owned you, then every decision about your life (and death) would be made by me, to suit my own purposes. If I felt that whipping you would stimulate you to work harder, I could whip you to my heart’s content. If I decided that it would benefit me to have you constantly giving birth, I could have you raped repeatedly. If I decided that the cost of keeping you alive outweighed the benefit I derived from your work productivity, I could feed you to a bunch of hungry tigers. Of course, if I wanted to, I could also choose to be a ’kind’ or ‘merciful’ slave owner. But the economics of slavery (in both the human and non-human contexts) militates strongly in favour of brutal treatement – and more importantly, ‘gentler’ treatment would not resolve the basic injustice of being owned by someone else, which is what allows them to decide how to make the best use of their property in the first place.

Non-humans may not have a concept of ‘slavery’ or ‘exploitation’, but that is irrelevant. Because they are sentient, our ownership and exploitation of them, which involves torture and killing, harms them in various ways. The principle of equal consideration requires that we give equal weight to equal interests. Every sentient life is a self-contained world of subjective observations and emotions – an individual who cares about what happens to him or her, and to whom (by virtue of his or her sentience) torture and death (which are integral components of non-human slavery) are harmful. Granted equal sentience, the species of an individual is no a more a relevant criterion on which to deny relevant interests (such as the interest in not being owned by someone else) than is race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, etc. 

 

Killing Animals vs. Making Them Suffer

An oft-repeated fable in the speciest mythology is that, because non-humans lack human-like cognition, a death is not harmful for them in the same way that it is for a human. A comfortable life and relatively quick and painless death, it is said, would constitute a “humane” or “non-abusive” use of animals. Unfortunately, this idea is mis-guided on a number of levels.

First of all, the legal system of just about every country on the planet is based on a person-property dichotomy. There are moral persons (somebodies), whose interests are procted via ‘rights’, and there is property (somethings), which has no value other than its market value to its owners. Putting any sentient group in the ‘property’ category will always result in the interests of that group being traded away at the slightest whims of those in the ‘persons’ category. That fact, combined with the pressure on agribusiness to mass produce affordable animal products for the multitudes, means that our treatment of non-humans – even in the ‘happiest’ of humane delusions – will always amount to conditions that can only be described as a Descartian nightmare.

But even if, contrary to the fact, it were possible to use and kill animals painlessly, such use would still harm them. A sentient being can interact with the world around him or her, and have subjective experiences that he or she personally enjoys. Even in the absence of philosophical notions of ‘self’ or about what it means to be alive, depriving a sentient being of the opportunity to continue living deprives them of their interest in continuing to seek experiences that are personally enjoyable to them. A painless death is a harm to any sentient being, in the same way that going blind would deprive someone with eye-sight of their interest in continuing to see. Granted equal sentience, all animals (human or non-human) value their own lives immeasurably, even if no one else values us. For the purpose of being treated as someone else’s resource, or being killed, we are therefore all equal.

Lastly, it should be noted that our domestication and dominion over non-humans – even if it could be made painless and did not involve killing – is fundamentally abusive and exploitative at every step. We breed genetically-manipulated animals into existence and force them to live in a state of permanent vulnerability (they could not survive independently in the wild) so that we can exploit them. For example, we have bred sheep to have unnaturally wrinkly skin (which is bad for their health) so that they will “produce” more wool per animal. We have bred hens to lay a hundred times more eggs than they would in nature, even though laying an egg depletes her body of nutrients. Although non-human slavery involves torture and killing, the ownership and exploitation of vulnerable sentients is itself abusive and inhumane. Talking about “humane” or “non-abusive” animal use is like talking about “compassionate” or “non-abusive” child molestion - an oxymoron if there ever was one.

 

On Kinship

The claim that all sentient beings have equal inherent value is likely to raise some eyebrows. Surely, if I were in a lifeboat and could only save one of either a family member or a non-human, I would choose my family member over the non-human?

That is, of course, a no-brainer. In a situation of genuine conflict, I would choose my mother over a chicken. Although killing a sentient being is always problematic, no choice made in such a scenario could ever be perfect. I could only save one individual, and I have kinship ties with my mother that I do not share with the chicken. However, if the chicken were replaced by a human that I didn’t know, I would still choose my mother over him or her. Most people, if they are honest, will admit to choosing their mother (or child, spouse, etc) over ten other humans.

If, however, a decision had to be made about whether to use my mother or a chicken (or another human being) as someone else’s resource, then my personal bias would become irrelevant. The fact that I prefer my mother over someone else (whether that ‘someone’ is human or non-human) does not make it OK to kill and eat the second party, or to use them in a painful bio-medical experiment. Like my mother, they value their own lives immeasurably, irrespective of whether or not anyone else values them. For the purpose of being treated as some else’s resource, all sentient beings are therefore equal.

Let’s look at another example. Suppose that I am in a lifeboat, and I can only save one of either an elderly person, or a young child. No choice made in such a scenario could be perfect – someone would have to die. All other things being equal, I might decide to save the child, given that he or she theoretically has a longer life ahead of them than the elderly person. But even if I have a policy of choosing young people over the elderly in such scenarios (for precisely that reason), it would not make it OK to kill elderly people and make leather jackets out of them, or to use them as unconsenting subjects in biomedical experiments.

If I am in a lifeboat scenario and have to choose between a human and a non-human, and I do not know (or have emotional ties) to either one of them, I can choose either one of them. I may nevertheless choose the human over the non-human because I decide, being human myself, that I know what death would mean for the human in a more accute way than that of the non-human. But even if that were the case, it would not say anything about the (im)morality of treating non-humans as resources for humans in non-lifeboat scenarios.

The institution of non-human slavery fabricates unnecessary conflicts between humans and non-humans. We breed animals into existence to use as our resources – we drag them into the lifeboat scenario - and then we sit around scratching our heads, wondering what morality requires of us. Hint: morality requires that we give equal weight to equal interests. It requires that we recognize the right of every sentient individual to not be the property of another. The recognition of this one basic right would lead to the abolition of all animal use.

 

Towards the abolition of non-human slavery 

In his book, Introduction to Animal Rights, lawyer and animal ethicist Gary Francione introduces a character called Simon the Sadist, who enjoys blow-torching dogs. Simon is otherwise a nice, law-abiding guy; he just has this kink. He has no real reason for doing this, other than his personal enjoyment.

Any sane human being on the planet would agree that what Simon is doing is wrong. Why? Because we all agree that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals – and that personal enjoyment, convenience, or habit/tradition don’t cut it.

But our uses of animals are not necessary. We don’t need to eat animal products:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

We eat, wear, and otherwise exploit animals because we enjoy it, and because it’s convenient and traditional. Anyone who is not a vegan is participating in the unnecessary and killing of animals that, by their own admission, is no different from what Simon does to dogs.

Veganism is the only the rational, coherent response to accepting that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. More to the point, embracing veganism – not as part of a 9-5 flexitarian lifestyle, but as a moral and political act - represents the principle of abolition applied to your own life. It is your recognition that animals are somebodies rather than somethings – and that they should be treated as such. It is the refusal to participate in violence against the vulnerable.

The road to abolition is paved with veganism. Go vegan, and educate those around you in creative, non-aggressive ways about why they should do the same. They will convince and influence others, who will convince and influence more people yet, and so on.

Together, we can change the world.