Is vegetarianism and veganism about animal welfare or moral superiority?

[robert99]

Is vegetarianism and veganism about animal welfare or moral superiority?
UK's The Guardian - Is vegetarianism about not harming animals, or feeling morally superior? | Leslie Cannold for the Ethics Centre
Leslie Cannold ("Thought leader and Educator" - sounds rather ominous) writes "ethically-farmed and slaughtered animal products" - yeah, that again.

 

[Capstan]

The author does not have the power to bestow a right to life on another, animal or human. They have only the power to take it away. They must live and die with their own actions, creative or destructive.

 

[robert99]

If you call yourself a "thought leader", it says a lot.

 

[Poppy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I skimmed the article and the main argument seems to be that since animals are going to die anyway, as long as we don't cause them suffering, eating them should be our prerogative.

Imho, humans are innately greedy and self-centered. Who could trust a "cruelty-free" label in a culture where profitability is the singularly most important aspect of any business?

 

[Blobbenstein]

I thought the main argument was that the number of veg*ns wasn't rising, and would stay at 5-10%(or whatever) so if people were going to carry on eating animal stuff, then it should be from the least cruel source.

 

[Poppy]

Pretty much the same thing.

"The truth is that an ethically carnivorous life is possible so long as we ensure the animals we consume have lived and died without unnecessary suffering.

Do animal rights trump human interests? Not if the animal right we are talking about is a right to life, and the human interest at stake is health. But I join with most people in believing we do have an obligation to stop animal cruelty and to fulfill this duty through the choices we make about what we eat, wear and do every day."

I don't like that "the human interest at stake is health" statement thrown in at the end, and the author uses "carnivore" instead of "omnivore". I know I'm far healthier as a vegan than I ever was or would now be as an omni.

 

[robert99]

I'm still trying to understand what "humane or ethical slaughter" is ...

 

[Tom L.]

^^^ I'm not. I stopped trying literally decades ago.

As I see it, the main issue here is that animals enjoy their lives (from my observations of them). The fact that death can be painless (at least in theory), and that animals apparently don't have a conception of "death" and presumably cannot actually fear "death", is irrelevant. Ending an animal's life does them harm by depriving them of the experiences they would have enjoyed, had they lived.

Then there's the question of precisely how someone can really care about giving an animal a pleasant (if short) life, and a painless death, if they truly see an animal as something to eat.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think animals have an intuitive conception of death...they see it like falling off a cliff into a dark void, and they do fear it....the end of all they know; the end of light..

 

[Tom L.]

I guess I can't be sure, really. I can't read an animal's mind and they generally don't have the language capacity to communicate such abstract concepts.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Funny how people talk about moral superiority (or the "moral high ground") as if it's a bad thing. Fairly rubbish article, but these types of arguments are enough to muddy the issue enough to greatly slow down real change.

 

[Andy_T]

It seems a bit counter-intuitive that the author hails Peter Singer as "one of the intellectual father of the animal rights movement" and mentions in the same sentence that "even he" does not believe in a right of animals to live.

Even Peter Singer, one of the intellectual fathers of the animal rights movement, doesn’t believe animals have a right to life. In his seminal text Animal Liberation he says we must refuse to contribute to – and act to stop – the unnecessary suffering of animals.

That is true. He is a utilitarian believing in welfare, and as such a rather poor choice as example for a philosopher concerned with the animal rights movement.

Also, the claim that the relative number of vegans and vegetarians has not changed over time is just that ... an unjustified claim.

Indeed, given clear, cross-cultural evidence that only around 1.5% of people are willing to try or stick with a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle – figures that have not changed over time – the promotion of an ethically carnivorous life is likely to be a far more effective way to reduce the suffering of animals.

So, what I see is a lot of straw man arguments, but not really an article worth discussing in a lot of depth.

 

[Andy_T]

Funny how people talk about moral superiority

In my humble opinion, nothing illustrates a person's self-perceived "moral superiority" than their belief that other living beings are just there for them to eat, wear or otherwise use.

 

[Andy_T]

It would be interesting to hear how the author fares in the discussion today...

IQ Debate Animal Rights Should | City Recital Hall Angel Place

Her arguments do not sound too convincing to me.

If it were, it wouldn’t be the first time the eco-left stymied mass behaviour change with unpalatable prescriptions delivered in self-righteous tones.

(If you even can call that "arguments")

 

[robert99]

If anything is a waste of time, it's that "discussion". We do have to remember that she is Australian.

 

[MadamSarcastra]

Why only two choices? What about health (personal & environmental), as well? Loaded questions, man.... dangerous. LOL

 

[Andy_T]

My understanding is that health-wise, there are no real reasons not to eat some meat, fish, dairy and eggs now and then (unless you look at the health of the animals in question, which is definitely quite negatively impacted by that decision, that is).

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I've been reading about nutrition to help me adapt to a vegetarian and mostly vegan diet, and I'll put my conclusions here. My main sources are looking at the results of scientific studies with large sample sizes, websites especially Vegan Health Home Page, and a book on vegan nutrition. Becoming Vegan: Express Edition by Brenda Davis, Vesanto Melina

1. The argument for vegetarianism and veganism should primarily be about animal rights, animal welfare and the environment, not which diet is more healthy.
2. There is not much difference between human health overall on diets with and without meat.
3. If a diet is carefully planned from a nutrition stand point, vegetarian and vegan diets are probably slightly superior. If a diet is carelessly planned, including meat or diary is probably slightly superior.
4. Vs a diet with a large amount of meat, especially red meat, vegan or vegetarian diet is probably better. Vs a diet with a modest amount of meat there is not much difference.
5. For overweight people (and especially older overweight people with cholesterol build up) a vegan diet would be particularly good.
6. Diets with plenty of meat are characterized by an excess of certain things, especially fat and cholesterol. Vegetarian and more so vegan diets the concern is the opposite - a deficiency of things, with Vitamin B12 at the top of the list and then a few others. (Iodine could be one to watch.)

 

[Jamie in Chile]

In my humble opinion, nothing illustrates a person's self-perceived "moral superiority" than their belief that other living beings are just there for them to eat, wear or otherwise use.

Thanks. I am making a mental note and hopefully will remember that when I get accused of moral superiority.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

It seems a bit counter-intuitive that the author hails Peter Singer as "one of the intellectual father of the animal rights movement" and mentions in the same sentence that "even he" does not believe in a right of animals to live.



That is true. He is a utilitarian believing in welfare, and as such a rather poor choice as example for a philosopher concerned with the animal rights movement.

Also, the claim that the relative number of vegans and vegetarians has not changed over time is just that ... an unjustified claim.



So, what I see is a lot of straw man arguments, but not really an article worth discussing in a lot of depth.

Hm. Not sure about your comments on Singer. I read his book and saw a 1-hour speech on you tube at the end of last year, and I think this might be a slightly unfair interpretation of it.

He talks a lot about fundamental animal rights and speciesism rather than things like bigger cages and I think in practice he is more about animal rights than animal welfare. While strictly speaking you might be right that he might believe that in theory it might be OK (according to him) to kill an animal with zero suffering, in practice he knows that this isn't the case and never will be. He believes in converting to veg or vegan not eating meat from better farms, and as such in a practical sense is more of an abolitionist.

It is true that he is focused on reducing suffering rather than giving life, but I think he applies that philosophy equally to humans - in say the abortion debate.

You have me doubting myself a bit here as well, I think I'll read the book again this year as I think you could argue this either way.

As to the question about whether vegans or vegetarians are growing a lot, the data doesn't seem to be out there. It would be nice to include the question on national censuses, or see a company commit to doing a very large survey and then repeating the same questions and methodology every few years. Failing that it's very hard to say since how do you keep track of those that revert to meat eating without surveys with a large sample size that accurately represents the whole population? There does seem to be significant anecdotal evidence that a lot of vegetarians and vegans regress, and that the increase of % of both is quite slow.