sign in sign up
<<
Home , Brigid Brophy, David Sztybel, Donald Watson, Ethical omnivorism, Meet Your Meat, Michael Allen Fox

Veganism vs. Violence

“We are becoming casual about … violence.”

— Norman Cousins

Introduction towards nonhuman sentient beings. are unparalleled places People vary widely in their responses to of multifarious screaming, kicking from . Many individuals regard the types both and others, horror, terror, of that they have enjoyed since blood, and guts. They are also violent to childhood with fondness and affection— humans, with the general chaos including the animal products such as resulting in the highest on-the-job , , and eggs. Yet often that injury rate of any profession. warm feeling is superficial and fails to acknowledge the Many of many ways in these violent which violence is patterns first arguably interweaved implicated in many with our food choices. lives in the innocence of It would be bigoted youthful to assume that ignorance. violence can only They did for be executed against me. But do beings. I they stand argue that animal up to mature agriculture is scrutiny? I violent towards its victims. If we doubt that anyone could provide any slaughtered humans for food—even if really good reason in favour of meat- we tried to do it so-called eating and the like. Part of why I “humanely”—there is no doubt we believe this will become apparent in the would call that violence. We would be course of this essay. kidding ourselves if we concluded that the exact same forms of treatment are This informal paper will defend the idea non-violent when they are directed that violence towards nonhuman animals for food and other unnecessary If we believe absurdities, products and services cannot be we shall commit atrocities. defended. I am not implying that there isFigure any form 1. of animal exploitation that is necessary, from a moral point of — Voltaire view.A liberated Medical cow. vi visection, searching for cures and treatments while harmfully eating though. There are people who using animals, is sometimes wrongly embrace for health reasons considered to be “necessary.” But please alone, but I do not consider in this essay see the sister paper to this one, entitled, people who do not substantially care “Anti- and Anti-Violence.” about violence towards nonhuman animals.

Veganism versus Omnivorism The opposite of dietary veganism is not just “meat-eating,” since there are many What is veganism? The term was coined other animal products that people in 1944 by Englishman . besides so-called “meat”: dairy, eggs, The term vegetarian had been around for ocean creatures, honey, and animal- over a century, since 1837. Watson based additives to and drugs for wanted a word that did justice to people example. , popular author who not only abstained from meat-eating, and speaker on veganism, calls but also other products derived from the the opposing view to veganism. bodies of animals. However, this does Vegans are often not seem accurate. defined as not eating Our task must be to [widen] A eats animal products, but our circle of to only meat, such as veganism is also embrace all living creatures the case of snakes, much more than that. who are true First, veganism is and the whole of nature in its . more of a non- beauty. , violent with however, eat both respect to nonhuman animal and animals than — Albert Einstein foods. So the avoiding animal opponents of vegans products. We can prove this. Many are ethical omnivorists, who maintain vegans breast-feed their children. Well, that it is ethically permissible, or breast is an , albeit perhaps even desirable, to consume not a nonhuman animal product. nonhuman animal products. I will coin However, breast-feeding is non-violent my own term—omnivorism—as a and therefore vegan. If women were short-form of this other new term, exploited for their eggs or breast-milk, by “ethical ominivorism.” Omnivorism contrast, that would not be vegan. will include an implicit reference to , especially: the morality of . Second, veganism has taken on a meaning that goes well beyond just eating, which was the original focus. It is Goliath a non-violent lifestyle including anti- vivisection, not wearing fur, or reckons that debating meat- , boycotting animal , aquaria eating and so forth is: and , and opposing . Veganism is a holistic lifestyle, not just a …speaking out…against the way of eating. I will focus here on the enormously powerful forces of

2 social custom and personal habit. Here, surely, animal is David The greatness of a nation and and the vast wrong of meat eating is its moral can be Goliath.1 judged by the way its animals

Animal agriculture accounts for more are treated. than 97% of animals killed by humans in the U.S.2 According to many sources, — Mohandas Gandhi more than 50 billion animals are killed each year for eating in the U.S. alone. Agriculture attests that 640 A Brief History of Non-Violence million—that’s 0.64 billion—animals are killed each year in my country, Canada. I will show how non-violence flows as The Toronto Vegetarian Association an implication of the major Western estimates that the average meat- theories of ethics. For now though, let eater’s lifetime kill-toll is: us look to the Orient for the origin of the principle. The principle of non-  12 cows violence emerged in a South  29 hogs Asian called more  2 sheep than five millennia ago in the  37 turkeys geographical area now  984 chickens known as . The Jains  910 pounds of fish called this principle in . Literally, ahimsa That much is about means non-injury, but many Goliath. have translated it as non- violence. Traditionally, non- “David” is getting bigger violence of the Jains applies too though. Of adults in to all sentient beings, or the , 2.5% entities who have are vegetarian, which is consciousness, and in about 4.5 million people.3 particular, affect (feelings, Slightly less than 1% were desires, preferences, and moods). vegan.4 And 4% of Canadians were Jain ahimsa has long been generally reported as vegetarian, which is about opposed to animal exploitation or 900,000 people.5 Alan Beardsworth and neglect. Jain animal sanctuaries in India Teresa Keil note that membership in the are not uncommon. Religious Jains British group, Society, cannot be hunters, fishers, or trappers. jumped from 7,500 to 18,500 between They are vegetarian and often objected 1980 and 1995.6 Philosopher Tom Regan to Hindus engaging in estimates that more than half of the world Figure 2. population is vegetarian.7 Jeremy Rifkin writes: “two out of every three human The raised hand stands as a symbol of beings on the planet consume a primarily non-violence for the Jains. Ahimsa in 8 the Sanskrit is artfully inscribed in the vegetarian diet.” palm.

3 over the ages. Yet Jains generally value have had a cultural blind- escaping it after death. spot about enslaving cows The Jains are atheists for milk, as with many but they nevertheless South Asians of that believe that each soul is region. It is rationalized in holy: infinitely ways that need not detain knowing, joyous, and us here. Although Jains compassionate in pure are a small part of the form. Of course one can population of India, they embrace non-violence are well respected and without subscribing to very widely recognized. any of the religious aspects of Jainism. Interestingly, Jains commonly believe that it However, it is is morally acceptable to absolutely necessary in use physical force in the history of ideas to defence, including in wars. credit the Jains with Exactly how this can be non-violence. Certainly defended will not be the notion never had any examined in this paper, important genesis in but it may well relate to Western thinking in a choosing the least of way that is so full of expected violence. An integrity as to include attacker is not only not non-violence to all innocent, as a rule, but beings to whom violence will generally inflict more could matter: sentient damage than someone beings. Presumably, simply seeking to restrain nothing—including or to end a threat. violence or the absence of it—matters to non- The Jain justification of sentient beings. non-violence is essentially compassion, although the Jain monks are much Jains also believe that more strict than violence causes householders. Lord people to gain bad karma. Karma literally Mahavir is especially revered as a “self- means “,” that is, the fruit of action, conqueror” who exemplified ahimsa or what it results in from a causal since ancient times. perspective. In fact, the Jain theory of karma is that there are physical karman Figure 3. Top. particles that adhere to wrong-doers, A statue of Lord Mahavir. weighing them down, and preventing them from leaving this Earth when they Figure 4. Bottom. die. Like so many of their region, Jains are pessimists about this world and Jain monk with a face mask.

4 kinds of protests: non-violent and Some Jain monks wear face masks so violent alike. In any event, he became they do not breathe in micro-organisms. revered by millions and was given the In modern times, ahimsa or non-violence honorary title, Mahatma, which means has been most famously championed by “great soul.” Mohandas Gandhi. The latter himself was a Hindu, but he was happy to borrow An ethical vegetarian, Gandhi famously ahimsa from the Jains. Gandhi was scribed: “To my mind, the life of a originally a vegetarian for ritual reasons lamb is no less precious than that of a relating to his family’s Hinduism. When human being.” Gandhi was training to be a Another key lawyer in England, promoter of however, he met non-violence, early although not for thinker, Henry S. animals as Salt, who Gandhi, was convinced Gandhi Martin Luther to become an King, Jr., the ethical vegetarian great civil rights for the first time, advocate on and not just a behalf of traditionalist African- vegetarian. Gandhi Americans in led a movement the United seeking South States. King Asia’s was a great independence from orator and the British Empire. leader, but This led to the formation of two modern unfortunately, like Gandhi, was states once autonomy was won: India and assassinated. Pakistan. British colonial security forces would mercilessly beat Gandhian , Dr. King’s wife, protesters. went vegan in 1995, claiming that animal rights is a logical extension of These agitators for independence were her husband’s of non- completely non-violent, and so the British violence. Dexter Scott King, son of ended up being shamed on the world Martin and Coretta, is also a vegan for stage for carrying out utter savagery. The animal rights reasons. Indians were sympathized with as they themselves were wholly innocent, only wanting their own country again rather Figure 5. than living under a tyranny by a far away imperialistic government. Gandhi was Gandhi had a few possessions: a successful in his non-violent campaign. loincloth and a bowl. Be it noted though that there were many

5 What Is Violence? It is noteworthy that none of us wishes to be subject to violence—apart from, This is a highly controversial subject. say, masochists. However, for reasons Traditional definitions, such as are to be which we will not enter into here, found in dictionaries, emphasize the masochism is not a suitable basis for an physical. But child abuse can be verbal— ethical theory, and not simply or psychological. democratically. There is nothing remarkable of a There may be some physical nature going situations which call on there, except for what I call non- perhaps inside the violence brain, and so forth. approximation. In Old-style thinking also those cases, violence is emphasizes great expected, and we have force, but is it not to get as close to non- violent to erase a life, violence as possible by while the victim is minimizing violence. sleeping, even with a Defence was raised as painless gas? an example earlier. However, non- Etymologically, violence as such is to violence is probably be executed in as related to violate. many cases as Linguists are unsure. possible. That is: no However, regardless, I violence as the gold am going to use what I call the standard. Each non-violent agent must, violationist theory of violence. Violence generally, be non-violent towards each is whatever violates sentient beings. At and every sentient being. least violence for the purposes of ethics, since things matter to sentient beings but not to nonsentient beings. Someone’s Omnivorism and psyche is violated so long as they are deliberately made to feel so much as points out that significantly uncomfortable, thus people commonly compartmentalize violating their peace. But although when it comes to animals.9 That is, comfort is emphasized in this way, it is in many are kind and good to humans but, a non-violent manner. Thus, a rapist’s essentially, cruel and violent to animals. discomfort at being stopped would not Meat-eaters generally do not apply the count. His or her satisfaction as a rapist is same moral standards to our treatment part of violence, not non-violence. Only of all sentient beings. what is consistent with non-violence is Figure 6. esteemed and cared for on non-violence ethics. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

6 Discriminatory violence against confining animals by nonhuman animals can be referred to as cramming them into minimal speciesism, which is analogous to racism, indoor spaces (less rent or sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, land costs), in feeding them biphobia, transphobia, ageism, and awful food (which is cheaper), discriminat- keeping ion against them in filth people of (rather than different paying for nationality, cleaning), politics, letting them creed, or suffer appearance. stifling, toxic Each of these air and makes its extremes of victims hot or cold uncomfort- (rather than able at the pay for very least, adequate often with much greater violation on top regulation of the atmosphere of that as well. Any one of these in factory farms, transport oppressions can be defined as vehicles, or slaughter discriminatory violence towards only a facilities), failing to attend to specific class of targeted sentient their medical needs (to offset beings—most apply only to humans. veterinary costs), and transporting and killing them forcefully and hurriedly Violence from Factory Farming (because workers are paid by the hour and meat is sold by Philosopher writes: the pound).11

…the way we currently kill [animals Food on factory farms may for food] is, at best, merely painful include waxed cardboard and terrifying. At worst, it surpasses containers, and the nastiest excesses of even the most feathers, cement dust for up to warped horror writer.10 30% weight gain,12 and corpses from unsaleable meat that might It may be supposed that Rowlands is be cancerous. exaggerating, but he is not. It is cheaper to treat animals violently than not, it turns Veganism takes the focus away out. from so-called “” or “” and considers eggs and dairy as As I wrote in earlier work: Figure 7.

It is usually thought that there is Animals are vulnerable to human more money to be made in violence.

7 birds do not run around. They often lose feathers, exhibiting semi-skeletal wings and skin

well. I will focus here on factory farming for eggs and milk.

Consider now the treatment of rubbed red raw. hens. Five birds are often crammed into tiny cages whose bottom is Hens have a natural pecking about the size of a folded regular order, but under these unnatural newspaper such as The New York conditions, the result is often that Times. All male chicks are killed, a passive hen will stay in a corner often by being macerated live or and die because she will not have suffocated in plastic bags. As access to the food or water. The chicks, hens are standardly “de- stench and noise in these “egg beaked” or mutilated by a factories” often overcomes human guillotine-like device or a hot knife, visitors, let alone the sensitive without anesthesia. prisoners of these confines. Morality rates of 10-20% are not Hens’ feet are often damaged by the uncommon, but all the “operators” wire cages. Their talons grow care about is profit. unchecked and sometimes wind around the cage wires since the Dairy are often intensively confined, and live imprisoned in Whenever people say, ‘We carts that automatically go to mustn’t be sentimental’, you milking stations, which may be fully automated as well. Cows can take it they are about to often are made to endure concrete do something cruel. And if or slatted stalls without bedding. they add ‘We must be They are slaughtered after about five stressful years, usually for the realistic’, they mean they are majority of “” flesh in going to make money out of Figure 8. Top. it. A chick being “de-beaked”.

Figure 9. Bottom. — Hens on a factory farm.

8 much as restaurants. turning around in their stalls What is more, because they the male calves will lick their are not useful urine for . to the industry and so are So yes, factory frequently sold farming is far off to become less humane “.” The than traditional veal industry is farming, and one of the most we have used cruel. These the examples male calves are auctioned off after being pertaining to eggs and milk that are so weaned at 2-4 days old, often with germane to veganism. But no umbilical cord still attached. A mother omnivorist situation is really humane. If will bellow for days for her missing humans were slaughtered even with young. The milk is essentially stolen. maximum attention to their comfort under the circumstances, we would The calves are never call this kept for 13-16 “kind” days treatment, and before it would still be slaughter in violent. stalls that are standardly 19- So we need to 22 inches wide, avoid speciesist with slatted language such floors above as “happy concrete. This meat.” That flooring often does not mean becomes slippery with excreta (often that no measures are diarrhea) causing frequent falls to these possible, each of which has the aim to recently born animals. They are often improve welfare, but the overall kept tethered so their muscles or “meat” situation is still “animal illfare” as I will be soft. Naturally playful and have noted elsewhere.13 For any human skipping around the fields, these animals in a like situation would be faring ill. are not allowed even to walk, let alone to socialize, although cows are deeply social Figure 10. Top. creatures. In order that their flesh appears pale on the plate, these so-called “veal A so-called “veal” calf. calves” are kept deliberately iron- deficient or anemic—just not so much Figure 11. Bottom. that they will necessarily die before Cattle beng shipped to slaughter. slaughter. They are often kept from so

9 Omnivorism’s Violence Done to Omnivorism’s Violence Done to the Human Health Environment

Those who participate in violent eating The omnivorist diet is the world’s worst habits also get much higher risks of: environmental disaster:  arthritis  asthma  according to a 2006 United  cancers Nations Report, it is the #1  constipation contributor to global warming at 16  diabetes (adult-onset type) 18%. That by far surpasses all  gall stones forms of human transport  gout combined  heart disease  omnivorism causes 10 times as  kidney stones much water pollution than all that is otherwise attributable to  multiple sclerosis humans17 such as from the filth

from factory farms commonly  seeping into groundwater, lakes,  salmonelosis and streams  strokes  animal agriculture uses more  ulcers, and still other morbid than half of our fresh water18 conditions  we could save 30% of all raw resources by not indulging in To get a sample of how bad it is, consider omnivorist habits19 that, according to the World Health  growing to feed Association, 30% of people die of heart uses up the majority of arable disease. Vegans only have about a 3% 14 land. For example, 95% of oats risk. And according to the group, in the U.S. are grown to feed Physicians Committee for Responsible animals. This causes: Medicine, people who eat animal  habitat losses  massive extinctions due to clearing lands for grazing animals—mainly cattle  a loss in  a greatly increased use of pesticides when so many crops are grown for animal feed  animal agriculture is the leading products have 40% more cancer.15 People source of topsoil depletion. are playing with their own lives or quality About 75% of the original of life eating animal products, not just United States topsoil was gone killing and degrading nonhuman animals. by 1987.20 It takes 500 years for nature to make an inch of topsoil.21 An estimated 85% of

10 topsoil loss is We justify it using non- attributable violence approximation. to raising However, consuming animals for parts of animal corpses food22 is completely avoidable.  omnivorism, is exactly all told, what the vegans are doubles fossil advocating. Meat-eating fuels in no way approximates consumption non-violence, but as compared flagrantly goes against to veganism23 the principle in question. Any initial skepticism that We cannot harm omnivorism is the nonhuman animals just worst environmental because they are not destroyer dissipates human. That would be when we learn these dwelling on an facts—only there is a irrelevant biological lot more not reported characteristic. It would here. Each of these be like saying that one impacts violates the dignity of sentient can be violent towards blacks because beings in some way. they have darker skin, or patriarchalists claiming they can be violent—subtly or grossly—towards those of the female Omnivorism: Justifiable? sex. District 9 is a film—whatever one’s overall assessment of the work People do have ways of justifying might be—that calls into question violence—in this case to animals through inferior treatment of aliens who come to slaughter and factory farming, and to Earth and are vulnerable. They are humans in respect of their degraded treated badly partly because—yes— health and a despoiled natural world that they are not human. The film is we all share. Perhaps the premier way of implicitly critical of such a kind of justifying violence is defence as we have , which is a form of discussed. However, meat-eaters are not speciesism and xenophobia, depicted “defending” themselves against animals also in the breath-taking movie Avatar. so the “defence defence” is altogether inapplicable. Are there other ways in What about omnivorism because which we can justify violence? nonhuman animals are mentally inferior to humans? Having surveyed the animal People justify violence if it is unavoidable. For example, we endure Figure 13. significant pain or suffering from the dentist if this is inevitable as part of a E.T. was far more intelligent than humans and telekinetic. treatment program for our teeth or gums.

11 ethics literature, I have had the Now Frey never suggests that we opportunity to observe that this is actually should eat such humans. But if we can the #1 rationalization used for violence eat nonhumans on the grounds that they against nonhuman animals. are mentally inferior, it is not clear why the same grounds do If we accepted this not justify consuming form of argument, these unfortunate then aliens who are humans. far more intelligent and otherwise It is often superior would be misconstrued that Frey justified in being is not a speciesist, violent towards us. because he is species- There might be blind. He would creatures who are exploit humans and vastly more mentally powerful than nonhumans alike if they have less ourselves. We would not accept such “rich” lives. That, however, would be inferior treatment, perhaps including stir- labouring under a simplistic fried humans, for a second though. So understanding of speciesism. why use the exact same principle in the case of local There are two sorts of creatures of other speciesism: species? Speciesism. 1. discrimination on the basis of The idea of species, e.g., in violence towards favour of those not as humans and mentally gifted against has more prosaic nonhumans and real-world 2. discrimination implications. Some people advocate on the basis of real or supposed violence towards mentally challenged species-characteristics, e.g., humans, such as this boy pictured above average intelligence for a who was born with Down’s Syndrome: species

Do not suppose I am jesting about Frey is ableist in inciting violence violence carried out against such innocent towards the mentally disabled. victims. Utilitarian moral philosopher, R. However, less mental “richness” is now G. Frey, advocates that they and nonhuman animals should be sacrificed Figure 14. Top. on the altar of medical vivisection. Why? Because they are mentally inferior in his A boy with Down’s Syndrome. view, or possess less “rich” lives, to use Figure 15. Bottom. his preferred terminology. R. G. Frey.

12 a species-characteristic for humans, so he spreading their hereditary is an ableist. However, the nonhuman sufferings abroad…25 targets of Frey’s violent have “less mental richness” as a species- Here Hitler condemns the mentally characteristic. So this is clearly violent disabled to death. treatment on the basis of species- characteristics. Indeed, here is a That is a kind picture of Hartheim of speciesism, Castle, in which, in fact the most during the Third important kind. Reich, there were For speciesist murdered some thinkers 69,000 mentally standardly disabled humans. denounce the first kind but, The killings here in effect, were stopped due endorse the to protests in second.24 But Frey is quietly of the first . Who else will decry the kind too: he eats no mentally challenged comparable violence done to the humans. nonhuman animals who supposedly lack “mental richness”? Of course And Frey is not alone in stirring up most people do not advocate that we violence against the mentally disabled. eat mentally disabled humans. But The Nazis put them to death, calling them that is part of the point. If we would lebensunwert, a not eat such phrase that humans, then means why eat “unworthy of nonhumans of life.” Here is comparable what Adolph abilities and Hitler had to say, harms in many which goes well cases? The same beyond Frey: justification “should” work The more since it applies to serious of both cases. Why the hereditary diseases, especially do we reject ableism applied to the mental diseases, make their humans but not nonhumans? It seems carriers completely unsuited for like philosophical hypocrisy and living. They rob those so afflicted of incoherence, plain and simple, which the capacity to reason and the feeling is also mirrored in our refusing to eat of responsibility so that they become dogs but not cows. of little value to the community. The There is no better defence of violence less worthy multiply without restraint and are continually Figure 16. Top.

Hartheim Castle.

13 than defence itself. But no speciesist has come up with a brilliant alternative The Golden Rule is ancient. Three justification of violence in the case of prominent versions are as follows: eating dead animals—more on this later. No one can successfully argue that the 1. Treat others as you would be violence is unavoidable, as though the treated. Non-violently. slaughterers or corpse-eaters are 2. That which would be hurtful to somehow controlled by someone or you do not unto others. Do not something. And their biggest argument— practice violence. the argument from mental inferiority— 3. Love thy neighbour as thyself. they would never accept applied to (Leviticus 19:18; Romans 13:9) themselves by aliens, and would only That is, non-violently. condone towards fellow species-members through violent bigotry. With the failure The Rule is part of religious but also of pro-violence we would be left with secular discourse. Many have nothing less than veganism as part of different but related versions: Judaism, non-violence. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Baha’i, and Zoroastrianism. Basic Argument for Non-Violence However, there are also many moral theories that arguably carry non- Above, I have offered a very basic violence as an implication as well. argument for non-violence based in:

 each of us demanding non- Many Roads to Non-Violence: Moral violence towards ourselves, Philosophy and Its Implications including as it affects us as sentient beings; virtually none of A variety of ethical theories might us is willing to feel so much as accept non-violence. They do not uncomfortable if we can mention the principle explicitly, and yet reasonably avoid that of perhaps they imply it. Rather than affairs present my own philosophical 26  consistency, integrity, non- justification of non-violence here, I hypocrisy, equity, or the Golden will now newly present how the main Rule demanding the same non- moral theories entail non-violence, thus violent treatment for others adding to the basic argument for non- violence already presented. Just as it is common-sense that none wants violence done to the self, so the The end of … discussion five principles named in the second part should be not victory, but of the basic argument are also common- sensical. Millions, probably even billions enlightenment. of people adhere to these distinct but overlapping moral ideas in their everyday — Joseph Joubert moral lives, and in laws and policies around the globe.

14 Some people might be intimidated by universalize such a practice. It creates discussions of moral theory. However, “a contradiction in the will,” as Kant this essay is based on a live presentation, put it. Well, then, who would and two 13-year-olds claim they universalize violence? understood clearly how various ethical theories imply is a neo- non-violence. So Kantian. In his I hope to reach a classic, A Theory of good number of Justice, he asks us to people with these imagine that we are arguments, souls who are not yet although those born. What not interested in principles of justice moral theory would we formulate may skip this if we faced a “veil of section. But fair ignorance” and do warning: you not know if we will would be missing be incarnated as some very “white” or “black,” interesting rich or poor, male or material! female, intelligent or dim, strong or weak, Let us start with and so on? Thus the three main people in what Rawls types of rights labels “the original theories. These position” would views started out enact principles in the field of but have also against racism, classism, sexism, been extended into the realm of animal ableism, and so forth. Mark Rowlands rights. , a German has extended this theory to animal philosopher, is known as “the father of rights because, he suggests, we might rights.” Contemporary philosopher Julian not know if we would be born human or Franklin applies Kant’s theory to animal of limited intelligence either. None of rights. Kant prescribed that people, when the negotiators of justice would wish to trying to do the morally right thing, be subject to violence, we may should only do what they can presume. “universalize.” For example, a shop- keeper should not cheat a customer. If you universalized such dishonesty, that means you would approve of being Figure 18. cheated yourself. People do not accept Immanuel Kant. that, and so it does not make sense to

15 Alan Gewirth is yet another writer in the chosen. This theory also comes in the Kantian tradition. He rightly observes form of rule : we should that everyone needs welfare and freedom choose that of rules which results in in order to do anything at all. There is the most good and the least bad overall. some truth to this observation. If someone is very sick or bound up Utilitarians may think in in a strait jacket, what terms of subtracting total can they do? Gewirth pain from total pleasure. thinks that everyone Consider for example should want rights to these predicted possible welfare and freedom as a futures: result. And due to what he calls the principle of 1. 400 pleasure generic consistency, this units - 200 pain neo-Kantian states that units = 200 all humans should have utility units these rights. Evelyn B. 2. 350 pleasure Pluhar has applied this units – 120 pain theory to animals, who units = 230 equally need welfare and utility units freedom. Yet if there is a 3. 10,500 pleasure strict duty not to harm units – 10,260 beings in respect of their pain units = 240 welfare and freedom, this is a form of utility units non-violence. Therefore, even though Option 3. Utilitarians ostensibly hold a very involves far more pain, it supposedly different theory than individual rights. should be preferred because it has the These theorists, with famous British most net utility. Animals too can feel. founders and John Stuart Mill, believe that we should aim Yet utilitarianism is sometimes used to for choices that have the maximum good justify omnivorism. R. G. Frey wrote an and the minimum bad overall. Bentham entire book arguing that the harms to famously penned of animals: “The humans of halting animal agriculture question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor, outweigh any harm to animals. In other ‘Can they talk?’ but rather, ‘Can they words, omnivorism is thought to be the suffer?’” path with the most net utility. I will address this argument soon, but for now Often those following Bentham and Mill would like to show how utilitarianism equate good with pleasure and bad with of a sort can be used to justify non- pain, for example. However, utilitarians violence just as the major rights do not think in terms of individuals as theories. rights theorists do. No, utilitarians consider different futures, and add all of Figure 19. the pleasures and all of the pains together for each possible path. The one with the Jeremy Bentham. most pleasures and least pains should be

16 character, respecters of rights in Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills Sumner’s version, and loyal by the millions in order to friends and loves. That, protect his domestic animals and their paradoxically, maximizes utility. Sumner denies rights to feed. Then he kills domestic animals animals while asserting them for by the billions and eats them. This in humans which I dispute turn kills [humans] by the millions, elsewhere.27 But assuming here, for the sake of argument, that because eating all those animals leads we can apply indirect to degenerative—and fatal—health utilitarianism to animal rights conditions like heart disease, kidney too, then it is conceivable that utilitarianism can justify non- disease, and cancer. So then man violence for all sentient beings. tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. We will return to the pro- omnivorist schools of utilitarian Elsewhere, millions of other human thought later. Utilitarianism is beings are being killed by and perhaps a treacherous path to malnutrition because food they could walk, but most consequentialists are of the kinder, indirect form. eat is being used to fatten domestic That is not too surprising, since animals. most Western thinkers support the politics of human rights.

Meanwhile, some people are dying of Virtue ethics is another major sad laughter at the absurdity of [the type of ethical theory. It holds human], who kills so easily and so that we should promote positive character traits such as , violently, and once a year sends out integrity, courage, and so on, cards praying for ‘Peace on Earth.’ while avoiding vices such as cruelty, hypocrisy, cowardice, and so forth. It can be argued — C. David Coats that it is unkind or cruel to deprive others of the non- My doctoral supervisor, Wayne Sumner, violence that, as I argued earlier, we is an indirect utilitarian. He that tend to demand for ourselves. This puts we should not aim for maximum net the lie, by the way, to those who say utility directly because we cannot really that they can make omnivorist violence measure utility units and there is a chance “kind” or “humane.” We generally do that people will do risky things from not consider violence to humans to be acting in an ignorant or biased manner. at all humane. Therefore the indirect utilitarians say that rather than aim for the most utility, we The feminist ethic of care has been should forget about acting like utilitarians attractive for people who are critical and go by common-sense morality: being especially of rights theory and trustworthy promise-makers, of virtuous

17 utilitarianism. Advocates of the care ethic consider what we have demonstrated maintain that we should base our actions concerning the most well-respected in caring, which can be understood as moral theories in society: sympathy or empathy. It can be argued that it is only truly caring to be non-  all apply to nonhuman sentient violent. beings if we restrict against speciesism as surely as racism Then there are thinkers who are skeptical  all readily result in non-violence about the major ethical theories that we  non-violence in turn leads to have been discussing. Skeptics doubt that veganism any of these views could be fairly For the animal shall not be So it appears that characterized as measured by [humans]. In a it is the absolutely right or world older and more complete omnivorists, wrong. The perhaps, who problem is, we do than ours, they move finished might not be so need ethics to and complete, gifted with ethically guide us in society. extensions of the senses we have respectable, that So how can we be is, if needless skeptics and moral lost or never attained, living by violence is not advocates at the voices we shall never hear. They respectable. same time? are not brethren, they are not

America’s solution underlings; they are other Three Pro- to this problem is nations, caught up with ourselves Omnivorist called . in the net of life and time, fellow : Even if we cannot Utilitarianism, know moral prisoners of the splendour and Ethical Nihilism, absolutes, people travail of the earth. and Ethical still need Egoism principles of ethics that “work.” One — Henry Beston But perhaps we could argue that would be we also need moral codes that “work” for premature to rule in favour of non- mentally disabled humans, and hence violent eating and living. Utilitarianism, animals too. Well, violence does not again, we have seen sometimes claims “work” for anybody on the receiving end. that the harm to animals is outweighed Therefore perhaps even moral by the benefits to humans. However, skepticism—with the help of utilitarianism seems to have a key flaw. pragmatism—can lead to non-violence as Many critics have pointed out that the well. theory does not seem to take individuals seriously. Thus the good of the many Ironically, omnivorists often refuse to can outweigh that of the minority or the debate their critics. They carry on as if individual, resulting in dire veganism is not the slightest bit consequences. respectable, or only for cranks. Yet

18 In my writing, I have noted that we can Ethical nihilism is another moral only ultimately act for sentient beings. philosophy that can be used to justify Only sentient beings care if they are omnivorism. Essentially, the nihilists benefited or harmed. Mere things such as believe that we have “nothing” to guide toasters and abstractions, most everyone us in terms of moral absolutes. presumes, do not care about anything. Elsewhere I try to provide sufficient Thus all good and bad is significant to grounds for disagreeing with this idea.28 each and every sentient being separately. Here we need only the admission of the pragmatists, discussed above, who say Utilitarianism fails to capture this key that we still need ethics for society. insight, unlike non-violence. Non- What “works.” And violence does not violence demands that each moral agent work for anyone as a recipient. We also exercise ahimsa towards each and every need society’s ethics to be fair. We can sentient being with whom they interact, still be unfair even if there are no moral as much as possible. So non-violent absolutes. So non-violence must apply agents honour the fact that they act to everybody. Nihilists might object ultimately for sentient beings as wholes, that their way allows the most the only intelligible option. Thus non- “diversity.” We do not, however, violence may seem to be in some sense honour violence as some wonderful inevitable. addition to diversity.

However, utilitarianism fails to act for Another, not very popular ethic is each and every sentient being as a whole, ethical egoism. It was started by British even though the latter seems appropriate philosopher Hobbes, although due to the nature of . We have the name “egoism” did not arrive till already seen that individuals can be the twentieth century from the treated violently on utilitarian reasoning philosopher Max Stirner. if their utility is “outweighed.” Even though we cannot act ultimately for There is a certain genius to ethical abstractions, that is precisely what the egoism. It does not simplistically say utiltarians seem to be doing or that we should all be selfish. Rather, it attempting. Instead of doing what is observes that it is in everybody’s self- appropriate for each and every sentient interest to agree to laws requiring being as a whole, the utilitarians act for citizens not to kill, maim, rape, rob, “maximal utility,” or utility units. This cheat each other, and so forth. If fixation must be carried out bar nothing, everyone agrees to such a “social including consideration of what is best contract,” then others will not do these for each sentient being. The view, then, is nasty things to oneself. Essentially, we excessively centred on mere things, and could characterize ethical egoism by fails to act ultimately for sentient beings noting that it is in every citizen’s self- in the way that each of us demands: non- interest to be non-violent towards violence. There are other critiques that I others. can offer, but this one—only briefly summarized here—seems damning. The problem with ethical egoism, or rather one of them, is that it seems to leave out nonhuman animals and the

19 mentally disabled from direct arbitrary favoritism and discrimination consideration. Perhaps rights could be associated with the oppressions we extended to the latter since egoists never listed earlier. know if they are going to have a mentally disabled child or end up mentally So none of these “rogue” moral theories disabled themselves. Still, as Evelyn that purportedly justify violence Pluhar points out in her book, Beyond towards animals by omnivorists is the Prejudice, it is an absurd consequence of least bit plausible upon closer ethical egoism that we would not care inspection. about mentally disabled humans directly, but only because some “normal” humans would otherwise object. However, nonhuman sentient beings cannot return The Ruling Out of Violence-Benefits the favour if one is non-violent towards If [humanity] is to survive, In social interaction, them. So they seem if we apply the totally excluded from we shall require a principle of non- the non-violent “social substantially new manner violence that we contract” based in self- of thinking. demand for interest. Does that ourselves—and mean no non-violence others if we have for nonhumans at our — Albert Einstein integrity enough to be -times? equitable towards them—then this has consequences. One Most people despise selfishness, and of them is that we normally rule out although ethical egoism goes far beyond violence-benefits. simple selfishness, it is arguably still Examples include: selfish. There does not seem to be any credible ground for holding that violence  crimes which confer a possible to oneself is “special” as ethical egoism benefit to criminals, including seems to imply. Violence has very murder, rape, theft, perjury, and comparable consequences to every so forth sentient being. It makes sense, in light of  exploiting wage slaves, this reality, to be impartial, which ethical producing hardship on the job egoism is not. It is markedly partial and during off-times, when the towards ego, or perhaps groups favoured inherent violations of poverty by ego. Saying “it’s me” does not give a must be endured as well reason to show why ego is special. And  politicians with conflicts of most egos are not special in any dramatic interest, thus violating social way. Therefore, ethical egoism seems to equity be without any plausible basis. If we  robbing future generations of respond to similar impacts similarly, we humans of resources through will directly respect all sentient beings, overconsumption and not just one of them. Egoists manifest  fouling natural areas with the vice of selfishness, sophisticated as pollution they are, and also the irrationality of

20  noxious experiments on humans  by-products from slaughter without informed  convenience or time-saving  the opportunity to interact with If we are consistent, we will rule out animals by workers, and, say, at animal agriculture too because violence- agricultural fairs benefits are ill-gotten gains. Animal  moments of contentment for agriculture generally results in suffering animals and loss of life. However, we have  joys from and hunting discussed modern-day factory farming,  brain and tool development which took hold post-World-War-II. It is from our evolving as a species now almost ubiquitous in many countries, engaged in hunting and, we have seen, involves specialized forms of violence—many more than I None of these benefits are needed, have recounted, such as in the case of because vegan food can be delightfully hogs, “beef” cattle, goats, , and so tasty and nutritious, an occasion for on. socializing, profitable and taxable. by-products all have vegan analogues, and nowadays, vegan Benefits from : products in general are quite Redundant at Best, Atrocious at Worst convenient. Many omnivorist interactions with animals are violent, I have already offered a refutation of whereas vegans can interact with rescue utilitarianism, which is associated with animals and those who live out their “the end justifies the means” type of lives at sanctuaries. There are other joys thinking. However, people persist in their for vegans than hunting and fishing. (Of prejudices. So let us consider whether the course, violence-based joys are not benefits of meat-eating somehow respectable on a non-violence ethic. outweigh the cost, namely the violence. Such pleasures involve oppressive Such a weighing procedure would domination as well as cruel indifference generally be speciesist, since perhaps to profound suffering.) And our brains most people would rule out violence- and tools have developed well enough. benefits in the case of humans—at least War also has been a huge stimulus to in theory. However, again, prejudices technological innovation, but that does persist. Some people claim that the not mean that war is desirable. We can following benefits are associated with conclude that not only are all of these meat-eating: violence-benefits to be ruled out on a non-violence ethic, but they are  taste needless anyway. And none of them  would justify eating mentally disabled  fitting in socially, say, using food- humans—that they are tasty, nutritious, sharing rituals profitable, and so on—whom we would  profits and jobs, e.g., raising also consume on such reasoning but for animals, slaughter, transport, speciesist favoritism. , grocers  contributing to the tax-base for We can go even further than showing government that all of the benefits of omnivorism

21 are unjust and redundant. Several benefits Honey: Not So Sweet? can be magnified for vegans. Many though not all vegans report that food for There are a number of non-violence them is tastier because their taste buds considerations relevant to exploiting seem more sensitive, and they sample honey bees: foods from cultures with vegan-positive offerings such as Indian, Chinese, 1. Bees produce honey for their Japanese, Mexican, Ethiopian, Middle- food. When humans take it Eastern, Italian, and so forth. Vegans also away, the bees must work get superior nutrition and health benefits, harder. That is called as we have already touched on. Food- exploitation. sharing rituals are much more positive 2. When “gigantic” humans when there is greater health to toast, interact with bees, accidental consciences that may be free of violence, killing and injury are quite and we are not being anti-social towards common. nonhuman animals too. After all, let us 3. Bees are very aware and social creatures. Even if they are not killed or physically injured, they Gandhi was once asked are all disturbed when humans what he thought about interact with them, and these Western civilization. He animals might perceive a threat. 4. When creatures are treated as replied: “I think it would be slaves, that is inherently violent a good idea.” because it violates their freedom. The slaves end up consider the social from a non-speciesist spending most or all of their perspective. Interactions with animals in time serving the slave-master(s). vegan contexts are far less violent and According to the International joyless than in omnivorist contexts. Bee Research Association, “To produce a single jar of honey, In sum: the benefits of meat-eating do not foraging honey bees have to outweigh the harms. The benefits are travel the equivalent of three overall inferior anyway, and also times around the world.”29 redundant. 5. Often beekeepers use smoke or more commonly, caustic Even utilitarians normally avoid chemicals when interacting with redundant benefits if they result in hives so they do not get stung. violence—unless we are talking about This no doubt is noxious to gross speciesists. And the great health these animals since it repels and environmental benefits of veganism them. additionally tip the scales quite a ways in 6. Exploiters kill whole colonies, the opposite direction of omnivorism. such as by blow-torching, if the latter acquire a bacterial infection. Like all factory farmed animals, human- controlled bees are much more

22 grow into birds. However, although there is no direct violence caused by such a decision, we must consider indirect and long-term factors too:

1. We should phase out keeping chickens as slaves for human benefit; starting a regular dependence on sanctuary eggs subject to infectious diseases. But in the diet does not maximize whole colonies are also slain to such phasing out, but risks save feeding them over the winter. prolonging it, with eggs 7. When colonies are kept over the becoming increasingly rare and winter, the honey is often in demand in vegetarian removed and replaced with sugar societies; present-day practices or syrup, which are cheaper create a precedent although less healthy for the bees. 2. This creates a conflict of interest 8. Queen bees are often bred, killed, in looking after the chickens; we and replaced, have their wings avoid people in positions of clipped, and are artificially power benefiting from the inseminated with sperm from vulnerable such as teachers not crushed males.30 having sex with students, and politicians not getting financial gains from their public life; Prejudices persist that insects are unless we are speciesist we will mindless, but they have eyes and so avoid conflict of interest visual awareness. We must extend the situations with these birds too; benefit of the doubt that they have humans have proven to be feelings-consciousness as well. Certainly grossly untrustworthy in they are motivated and I would say protecting animals’ interests if evidently feel peaceful or angry at people have anything to gain different times. This is not from the animals in question anthropomorphic—projecting human 3. It would be regarding animals as traits onto nonhumans. It is more what I instruments for human use would call “sentientomorphic,” reflecting which is a conception that we a common nature among sentient beings.

What about Sanctuary Eggs?

Taking milk from cows at sanctuaries to feed humans robs the calves. However, some animal rights people believe that there is nothing wrong with eating eggs that chickens lay in animal sanctuaries, which are not fertilized and would never

23 need to discard because it leads to veganism, and only redundant violence- violence against animals benefits to omnivorism, many of which 4. Eating or selling these eggs are of a degraded form anyway. The abandons a clear standard of fact is, omnivorism is a lot worse than veganism that we need to promote veganism, and the excuses only make in society for the sake of billions omnivorism appear even worse in the of animals, and eating eggs sullies end, although these pleas are originally and neutralizes that standard intended as rather desperate bids to save 5. Approval would allow fake face. Natural predators do not need any sanctuaries to appear that really excuses, by contrast, because excuses wish to market the eggs and use only apply to moral agents. Besides, the sanctuary image as a cover needing to eat animals to survive is 6. The chickens cannot give their unlike the case of humans, and we consent cannot truly use predatory violence as 7. Non-interference that we should our model for human behaviour—no exercise with wild animals can excuses there. and should be extended I am in earnest—I will not to Excuse #1: domesticated equivocate —I will not Humans should animals too excuse—I will not retreat a always have priority. of single inch and I will be United Poultry heard. Even if someone Concerns offers the believes this, it is best solution, I easy not to eat believe, by feeding — William Lloyd Garrison animals while eggs that emerge on attending to human her sanctuary back to the birds who are in concerns. In fact, though, ignoring her care. violence to animals is ignobly speciesist as we have seen.

Exposing Omnivorist Excuses Excuse #2: Animals cannot behave Objections to something such as ethically towards us, so we owe them veganism try to show that it is worse than nothing morally speaking. something else, namely omnivorism. An excuse, in contrast to an objection, tries If so, then human moral incompetents to show that what is worse—omnivorism have no right to non-violent treatment in this case—is either equally good or in either. It would be speciesist to apply fact better—in this case, than veganism— non-violence to these humans but not and therefore omnivorism is desirable or also to nonhuman animals. at least acceptable. I am using excuses in this technical sense rather than in any pejorative capacity. For our analysis has Excuse #3: Humans are natural shown many non-violent benefits to omnivores.

24  we lack the instinct to devour We cannot thus abdicate our moral raw carcasses and we are not responsibility. “Nature” permits all excited but innately sickened by manner of crimes. And again, predators the sight of blood, intestines and cannot be our moral heroes. It is also the like31 much healthier to be vegan, given human nature. We can leave nature in general much more robust and vital from an Excuse #4: What about plant rights? ecological perspective by adhering to a vegan diet. First of all, non-violence matters because sentient beings “mind” when Moreover, if treated we look at violently. human Most agree anatomy, that plants humans, who are not are technically sentient. omnivores, But resemble suppose for herbivores far the sake of more than argument carnivores: that plants are  we have sentient. short, We do not soft fingernails and very tiny need to eat animals, although we do “canine” teeth in contrast to absolutely need to consume plants to carnivores’ sharp, rending claws survive. Most of us would choose to and large canine teeth for tearing save ourselves over a piece of broccoli, flesh although there is no such “dilemma” in  we move our jaws up and down the case of animals contemplated as but also side-to-side to grind food. And again, even if plants are and with our back teeth sentient, vegetarians consume at least using our molars, whereas ten times fewer plants than meat- carnivores have no molars and eaters.32 This is because as we have their jaws only move up and down seen most crops are grown to feed in order to tear off chunks of flesh livestock. All of those plants and eat them whole omnivorists are indirectly consuming.  we have weak stomach acids compared to carnivores  we have long intestinal tracts unlike carnivores, and digesting Figure 22. flesh creates risk of food poisoning and colon cancer in us This, not atrocity images, is part of but not so for the carnivores what animal rights looks like.

25 Excuse #5: Only saints are vegetarian. This is one of the weakest excuses in the history of human thought. In human terms, perfectly ordinary Nonhuman people are obliged to be non-violent. animals used for food have central Only speciesists would not count this as a nervous systems and brains in the vast general duty towards nonhuman sentient majority of cases, and even mollusks beings as well. show evidence of . Fish are robustly conscious and sensitive to pain. Animals exhibit many feelings- Excuse #6: The animals never know associated behaviour such as avoiding, anything better than being raised for screaming, trembling, fleeing, and so slaughter. forth. The theory of evolution also suggests that we would have much in This excuse does not common with our vindicate child When I put food before him evolutionary kin. abuse, so animal my dog eats it; when I throw Charles Darwin abuse fails by the the stick, he fetches it …. indicated that the same reasoning. We minds of animals know better than Several times, I have tried are not different in treating others putting food before him and kind from human violently even if throwing a stick at the same minds, but only in animals are so de- degree. privileged that more time; each time he has sought or less violent neither the food nor the stick Take the example treatment is all they but stood looking at me. of a so-called “bird know. brain,” Betty the Crow. She had a — R. G. Frey bully of a cage- Excuse #7: Animals mate who are our property, to monopolized the do with as we will. food. Betty took a Little more than racism rationa lized wire, bent the end, then took the other in the case of humans. Anti- end in her beak and pulled the food speciesism would forbid this form of bucket towards her. This happened violence to autonomy in the case of more than once. It was widely reported nonhumans as well. in the on August 8, 2002. It debunks the theories that Animals cannot be property in the way animals are solely determined by genes, that an inanimate object can be. Nothing instincts, or environments. matters to a glass, presumably, but plenty matters to animals independently and individually. Excuse #9: Humans have souls but nonhuman animals do not.

Excuse #8: But animals are mindless. There are five replies to this. First, how can you show that anyone has a soul?

26 Second, if souls are essentially psyches, Someone might also disagree with my then animals have psyches too. Third, it is definition of violence. It does not ethnocentric to deny animal souls when necessarily mean they do not care about many cultures declare the opposite such the violation of sentient beings, so long as Jains, Hindus, and many aboriginal as the latter is accounted for in another peoples. Fourth, Cardinal Bellarmine way. However, if someone knowingly declares that if animals only have this one embraces the violationist theory of life, then we should be even kinder to violence, and recognizes the violations them, because they cannot have other they are participating in, then that experiences to balance things out. Fifth, individual is at risk of being described souls are no basis for a cosmopolitan as a violent person even in his or her ethic in societies which include agnostics own conscience. A violent person is and atheists. paradigmatically someone who carries out violence. Perhaps a meat-eater is only someone who is complicit in Excuse #10: Vegans should not dictate violence rather than violent themselves. their ways to others, but rather honour There is also neglect of violence that moral diversity. one is involved with. Money for animal products, too, is part of what occasions First, I am not dictating behaviour to omnivorist violence. The latter would anyone but rather informing free choices. cease altogether without consumer Second, speciesists violently force pigs to participation. Hitting is a form of be beaten and electro-shocked through agency that results in violence, but so is slaughterhouses—since they don’t like to neglect. Omnivorists are not generally be told to move—so that humans can violent, but regardless, they may look in enjoy a passing sensation of tasting the the mirror and desire to become a better hogs’ carcasses. Third, any diversity person by finally renouncing beyond non-violence is violence. Why omnivorism. Now someone who not “honour” violence? Fourth, non-violence only denies my definition of violence, permits tremendous diversity so long as it but does not care about the violation of is not significantly harmful. sentient beings can be described as uncompassionate or oppressive, for violation qualifies in most peoples’ Excuse #11: You are suggesting that I minds as oppressive harm. After all, it am a violent person, but I most certainly includes emotional abuse, and that is am not. standardly recognized among therapists as a legitimate problem because it is so Someone is not a violent person if they harmful. If someone does not care do not set out to do violence, and are about emotionally abusing animals, that deceived about the nature of their actions, is simply another instance of perhaps due to language. Some people speciesism. will think they are “exercising human rights” in rather than being violent. It is possible to engage in violent Excuse #12: The Bible suggests that it actions and not be a violent person if one is acceptable to eat meat. does not quite realize what one is doing.

27 The Bible also states outright that eating negative omnivorism is. But I ask on the mountains, coming near a people to be open-minded: rational as menstruating woman, and engaging in well as compassionate. usury is punishable by death. (Ezekiel 18:5-9) Clearly, we must use critical thinking before we accept what the Bible Many people would sooner Nuts and Bolts: teaches. die than think. In fact they Practical Considerations for We should not accept do. Going Vegan needless violence just because the Bible tells — Bertrand Russell Each individual vegan us to. It would be does make a speciesist to accept difference. If all of violence to animals in the name of the vegetarians in the world suddenly religion, contrary to the Golden Rule. decided to become meat-eaters, the market could not even support the demand for some time. Excuse #13: But I like the taste of meat… You can order a free Vegetarian Starter Kit from People for the Ethical This is extreme Treatment of speciesism. If Never doubt that a small Animals on the someone uses as an following site: excuse for violence group of thoughtful, that they enjoy it or its committed citizens can http://goveg.com/or results, you are talking change the world; indeed, der.asp about a mind that needs help. This it’s the only thing that ever Then there is the pleasure—a violence- does. Physicians benefit—does not Committee for count at all on non- Responsible violence ethics. And if — Margaret Mead Medicine (PCRM) one is a utilitarian, the enjoyment does free Vegetarian Starter Kit (which not weigh as anything compared to the emphasizes human health): violence that the animals endure, including prematurely cutting off lives http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vs with all of the possible pleasures and k/ comforts. Besides, it is readily possible to like or even to love a well-prepared vegan PETA has vegan recipes at: food or drink. http://vegcooking.com/

Many of these excuses are offered by You have a practically endless supply people who are in denial about how of great recipes. The following link is to positive veganism is and just how my own favorite vegan recipes:

28 1. Request vegan items at your http://davidsztybel/info23.html/recipes.ht grocery store; you may just find ml these products suddenly appearing on the shelves Use an accredited list of animal 2. Support vegetarian restaurants ingredients in order to avoid them in your inasmuch as your budget, time, foods and other consumer products: and preferences permit; they at times go under due to lack of http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal- clientele ingredients.htm 3. “Veganize” your cafeteria for your college, university or Ensure that you are eating a . residence with a simple step-by- Eat foods from the PCRM’s new, vegan step procedure: four food groups of fruit, , whole http://www.peta2.com/college/c grains, and vegetables: yc-veganize.asp 4. One of the most effective forms http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/f of which groups such ood_groups.html as the Toronto Animal Rights Society have successfully No, you do not need to fuss too much pioneered is showing videos of about nutrition. Yes, it is very easy to animal exploitation, such as have a nutritious vegan diet contrary to PETA’s 12-minute short film, popular myths. , on the streets using portable televisions and You may have heard of concerns about leaflets, and then inviting people B-12. Vegans need to make sure to regular vegan potlucks, each that they get enough vitamin B-12, one featuring an educational because current ways of processing foods video or guest speaker tend to eliminate the bacteria that generate B-12. That said, it is easy to get Be a force for veganism and help enough B-12 without special measures, spread non-violence to the world! and the human system requires only minute quantities of it that in fact are recycled over and over again. Soy Conclusion: Eating and Living beverages such as include doses of without Violence B-12, and that suffices for me. We cannot choose but to be omnivores For those who wish to research vegan in the sense of what we can eat. We can nutrition, an excellent book is Vesanto choose to be herbivores in terms of Melina and Brenda Davis, Becoming what we actually eat. Regardless of the Vegan: The Complete Guide to Adopting fact that scientists classify humans as a Healthy Plant-Based Diet (2004). omnivores, anyone can choose whether or not to be an omnivorist or a non- Here are some tips for vegan activism: omnivorist—that is, a vegan. Herbivorist is another term I would coin which refers to the dietary vegan, although we have noted that veganism

29 extends into a far more generally non- can see just how low people have sunk violent lifestyle. It can be objected that in mistreating fellow sentient beings. everyone has to be an ethical omnivorist because humans are I have sought to add omnivores. But that is Non-violence and truth are to the confused thinking. debate surrounding Being an inseparable and presuppose diet. In the course of and an omnivorist are one another. doing so, I offer two different things. apparently original Again, we can choose points that contribute actually to eat as — Mohandas Gandhi to our discourse in herbivorists, even if both this essay, and its we are obviously capable of nonvegan sister paper, “Anti-Vivisection and food choices too. Anti-Violence”:

I realize that some would think using the 1. showing how veganism does not term “violence” in relation to the simply mean avoiding animal mistreatment of animals is too “scary” or products “radical” for some people. Yet we need to 2. coining the terms “ethical be truthful about the violations that omnivorism,” or “omnivorism” animals face. If violence is done to for short, and “herbivorism” animals then people should be 3. the violationist theory of accountable for it. violence, including the idea of (non-)violent comforts 4. the principle of non-violence Some people may shy away, but those approximation people are also the least likely to do 5. redefining all of the forms of something on behalf of animals. There is oppression in terms of violence, nothing that more powerfully motivates a gross or subtle, using the ready conscience, I believe, than shame violationist theory of violence over violence. This is therefore a 6. the term “violence-benefits,” stratagem on behalf of animals that and their being ruled out should not be surrendered. Those who 7. the critique of Frey as a shy away may go to less truthful and speciesist although some say more anti-animal sources. The latter will that he is species-impartial coddle speciesists into continued inaction. 8. the basic argument for non- And everyone would agree that we are violence rooted in common- talking about violence if it were done to sense human animals. We should not encourage 9. the analysis of how the main or even tolerate speciesist double-talk. It moral theories all imply non- would be at the expense of the animals, violence and therefore a form of exploitation. 10. my critiques of ethical egoism Hiding the violence, or rendering it and utilitarianism invisible, is one of the surest paths 11. my defense of non-violence in towards perpetuation. We need to keep response to nihilistic “diversity” the moral high ground, from which we celebration

30 12. my critique of the use of Some people complain that veganism is sanctuary eggs too difficult. 13. countering accusations of anthropomorphism with findings of sentientomorphism However, it is no comparison to how 14. showing how hard speciesism is on omnivorism’s [People] at some time are farmed animals. benefits are masters of their fates. Moreover, there is unjust, nothing harder than redundant and what is impossible. If inferior — one has sufficient 15. my critique of moral and rational lame determination, one objections to veganism as mere can make it psychologically impossible excuses for oneself to be knowingly speciesist. No difficulty can compete with such In a forthcoming book, I will add much determination. more still to the ethics of non-violence, including with respect to analysis, For those who are reluctant, I cannot critiques, and justification. respond better than philosopher , who writes in response to those We all want a world in which everyone is who have some anxiety over a change non-violent towards us, and in all fairness in diet: we should be non-violent towards everyone else too. People who have no experience of how satisfying an If we pursue lines of All that is needed for the imaginative eating and lifestyle vegetarian diet that honour ahimsa, triumph of evil is for good can be may think we will not have [people] to do nothing. of it as a major violence to that sacrifice. To this extent, and the fruits I can only say: of those actions will — Edmund Burke ‘Try it!’ Buy a be ahimsic goods. good vegetarian By contrast, cookbook…and utilitarian and other rationalizations of you will find that being a omnivorism lead to extreme violence, and vegetarian is no sacrifice at all.33 therefore only violence-benefits. If you are not a vegan, then to that extent it is I think that Singer is right. People who very likely that you are engaged in say they “cannot” give up animal violence. The good news is that everyone products are deceiving themselves, only can do something about it. There can be covering over the choices they are very little doubt that to be anti-violence is continuing to make so that they appear to be anti-omnivorism. somehow “inevitable.” We can always choose non-violence.

31 One can make a nearly endless case with the world. Their time is up each about how positive veganism is. But only moment before the next act of violence. by trying it can one get a full dose of that positive energy. Indeed, a study shows that over 95% of former meat-eaters There is every reason for choosing report that a switch to a vegetarian diet against omnivorism and in favour of increases their energy, vitality, and affirming veganism. overall feelings of well-being.34 What about the other 5%? Well, this can easily Imagine a new world without avoidable be accounted for by the fact that some violence to animals—human or other. It people might not feel better, but perhaps would contain much healthier people, do not feel any worse. Also, there are enjoying life even into the sunset years. those who irresponsibly adopt They would be at peace with their nutritionally inadequate diets and fellow creatures. Vegans are perhaps therefore might not more fully Homo enjoy as much health You must be the change you sapiens, which from their meals. means “wise wish to see in the world. human.” Humans Consuming animal without the burdens cadavers creates a — Mohandas Gandhi of omnivorism conflict of interest in would relish their evaluating every compassionate possible use for animals. Dietary living both in their peaceful veganism alone prevents such conflict of consciences, but also in seeing the joys interest. Omnivorism involves violence to of rescued animals in peaceable homes human health, the environment, and never and sanctuaries. Envisage recovering least of all, the animals, and provides forests, oceans, and our very only redundant violence-benefits. atmosphere and you will have a glimpse Omnivorism, therefore, could not of some of the wonders that await a possibly be best. Veganism, though, may non-violent, vegan world. fairly be described morally as part of the best possible diet. I could never go back Acknowledgements to eating animal corpses—may the same prove to be true of you. I would like to thank Stephen Kaufman for his helpful feedback, which I have said there can be no good reason in significantly improved this paper. Paul favour of omnivorism. You are in highly York and Adam Wilson were also very distinguished company if you are still helpful. I also appreciate the editorial searching for such a reason. The world is assistance of my wonderful wife, still waiting for any one good reason pro Cassandra , and my dear mother, omnivorism, that the best minds on what Doris Sztybel. I believe to be the wrong side of the argument have not been able even to begin to supply. Each animal you are ______connected to through relations of indirect violence, however, cannot afford to wait

32 The author, , Ph.D., is an See: davidsztybel.info animal ethics philosopher who has published numerous articles, and lectured D.S. at Queen’s University, , Canada Toronto, and Brock University. September/October, 2011

Notes

1 Tom Regan, The Struggle for Animal Rights (Clarks Summit: International Society for Animal Rights, Inc., 1987), p. 65. 2 Eric Marcus, Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money (Ithaca: Brio Press, 2005), p. 83. 3 American Dietetic Association, “Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets.” ADA Reports 103 (June 2003): 748-765. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Jen Wrye, “Should I Eat Meat? and Dietary Choice,” in Fritz Allhoff and Dave Monroe (eds.), Food and Philosophy: Eat, Drink, and Be Merry (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007): 45-57; 51. 7 Tom Regan, Preface, Dead Meat by (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1995), p. 3. 8 Jeremy Rifkin, Beyond Beef: the Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture (New York: Dutton, 1992), p. 163. 9 Michael Allen Fox, Deep Vegetarianism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999), p. 40. 10 Mark Rowlands, Animals Like Us (: Verso, 2002), p. 116. 11 David Sztybel, “The Rights of Animal Persons,” Philosophy and Policy Journal 4 (1) (2006): 28. Quoted with minor modifications. 12 This last figure was gathered from and Peter Singer, Animal Factories (New York: Crown Publishers, 1980). 13 Sztybel, “The Rights of Animal Persons,” pp. 5-6. 14 Ibid., p. 247. Drawn from The Journal of the American Medical Association. 15 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine fact sheet, 2009. 16 2006 report by the United Nations. The World Watch Institute estimates carbon contributions as being much higher at 51%, which some believe is a bit too high an estimate. 17 Robbins, , p. 373. 18 Ibid., p. 367. 19 Ibid., p. 375. 20 Ibid., p. 357. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., p. 358. 23 An estimate used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals website, 2010. Interestingly, I heard a study reported that people trust PETA’s more than animal industry

33 statements, or even government assertions that are often blatantly biased to be pro-industry. The public is not always so naïve as is commonly assumed. 24 David Sztybel, “The Rights of Animal Persons,” Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal 4 (1) (2006): 1-37; 2. 25 Adolph Hitler, The Nazi Primer: Official Handbook for Schooling the Hitler Youth, trans. Harwood Childs (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1938), pp. 6-7. 26 My basic theory in this essay is a normative ethic built on the non-violence we all want. A meta-ethical case for non-violence awaits to be revealed in a forthcoming book. 27 David Sztybel, “Animal Rights: Autonomy and Redundancy,” Journal of Agricultural and 14 (3) (2001): 259-273. 28 In a forthcoming book on ethics. 29 FAQ of the International Bee Research Association, retrieved October 17, 2011 from: http://www.ibra.org.uk/categories.faq. 30 , “Honey Ain’t So Sweet for the Bees” Retrieved October 17, 2011 from: http://vegansociety.com/uploadedFiles/User_Hubpages/Education/Education_Resources/Honey. pdf. 31 PETA website, October 2011. 32 Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 1st ed. (New York: Avon Books, 1975), p. 249. 33 Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 2nd ed. (New York: Avon Books, 1990), p. 171. 34 Robbins, Diet for a New America, p. 163.

34