• Animal testing
• Bullfighting
• Child molestation
• Circuses with animals (including aquatic animals)
• Dairy and eggs (in most cases)
• Eating meat
• Hunting / fishing
• Kidnapping
• Buying leather / fur
• Murder / serial killing (depending on the killer and reason)
• Pesticides / “pest” control
• Racial cleansing
• Rape
• Slavery / low paid workers
• Theft
• Torture
• Zoos (in some cases)

Let me ask you some questions to help us come to a conclusion.

Were the Nazis bad because:

1. They tortured/killed human beings en mass?
2. They tortured/killed beings that were able to suffer?

Meaning, if they had tortured/killed brain dead humans (who were not able to feel pain/fear) would it have been just as bad or would it have been forgotten by today?

And if they had tortured/killed millions of monkeys who were able to feel the same amount of pain as the Jews, would it still be remembered today?

If humans are animals, and if human intelligence is unrelated to the ability to feel pain, which is shared equally amongst most animals, then why is it so shocking to torture a human but not an animal?

How is it that our intelligence grants us the right not to suffer? Isn’t that like saying that our sight grants us the right not to be shouted at? Are these qualities connected in any way? Can a person with high IQ suffer more than one with a low IQ? In fact, can’t children, who are unable to rationalise their pain, seemingly feel more pain than adults?

Why has the holocaust stuck in our minds for so long because of a few million tortured Jews but the hundreds of billions of animals who were since equally tortured for food are not remembered?

And would the holocaust have been any less shocking if the Nazis didn’t kill Jews because of hatred, but simply because they enjoyed the taste of Jewish meat and killed them to feed their families? Equally, would it have been just as shocking to you if the Nazis had tortured and killed millions of cows because they hated cows? If not, why not?

Is it the reason for unneeded torture (hatred, taste, convenience) that makes it horrific or is it simply the torture itself?

So why is it that we grant rights to some but not others?

Was it relevant to the Nazis that Jews were humans? How about the slave masters and the blacks, did they care about their species or was race only deciding factor to them?

You, I assume, care about all humans regardless of anything, so long as they are human. But why do you stop there? Why do you not care about all animals regardless of species?

One is black, the other white, one has fur the other not, one can write poems the other cannot. But are those attributes relevant to the right not to suffer? If so, should a severely retarded human be stripped of their rights?

And under what logic should the right not to suffer be based on color, gender, race, height, religion, sexuality or species? Would it not make more sense if the right not to suffer was based on the mere ability to suffer?

I would appreciate it if you could share your logic on the subject and explain why you believe you are better than the Nazis/slave masters and deserve not to be compared to them.

Animals taste good and since I am more powerful I feel I have the right to eat them. Animals are inferior beings, they don’t have our level of intellect so I don’t see anything wrong with eating them. They were bred for this purpose so their suffering is non-important as long as I get meat on my plate. Our society has eaten animals for hundreds of years, it’s a part of our culture and I’m not the one who’ll change that.

Use them at work and spread the message!

Dear thousands of cows, chickens, fish, shrimp, pigs and insects,

I paid someone to hold you captive in tight quarters. To remove your genitals, your beaks, your tails and to brand you, all while wide awake and without anesthesia. To forcibly impregnate you and keep you that way all your life. I paid them to remove you from your children and from your parents at birth. And finally to kill you. I paid them to treat you as a commodity, a slave, as an object that existed only for my benefit. As if you could not suffer, or as if it didn’t matter if you could or not. All of this when it was unnecessary to do so. I did this solely for my own pleasures. A tasty meal, a full belly. You gave me comfort, you gave me a way to fit in with others and with the crowd. You gave me a center piece around which I and my family could celebrate. You were there to fill an empty space when I had a longing that I didn’t know how to fix. You made me feel safe. I know you can’t answer me directly, but I want to make this right. I feel I do not yet understand how to do this fully. Until then I will do what I can.

I love you,
Eric

God gave man dominion over the animals.  Animals are one of God’s creatures that we are to love and respect.  I do not want to support an industry that tortures and mistreats animals.

There, that’s pretty much a light summary of what I believe.  Of course this is usually followed up by one or two notorious questions:

“So if you don’t eat meat, how do you get protein?”

and

“So I can understand not wanting to kill an animal, but what about cheese and eggs? Nothing dies for those.”

This is good reinforcement for you as to why you believe in being vegan and also can be used as a chance to spark conversation with people who would never think to consider where their food comes from. Also, for new vegans, this might serve as something to hold on to so that when confronted, you have something to say that will, hopefully, knock their socks off.

So here is my question for you guys:

What is /your/ vegan elevator speech? and what are the most common follow up questions?

First of all, there’s absolutely no way to know that animals don’t think. Just because they don’t communicate in any verbal human languages does not mean they don’t think. For all we know, cows are smarter than Einstein, but they choose to never talk and to instead eat grass all day. Anyhow, there is actually plenty of scientific evidence that animals do think. Pigs can play video games for a food reward. Rats can solve mazes. Gorillas can communicate with humans using sign language. And even if we could prove that animals couldn’t think, the important thing is that they certainly do feel. Babies and mentally handicapped people don’t think anything like human adults can. Should we kill and eat them too? The ability to think like a human should not be the grounds for moral consideration. What shapes most moral codes? Usually, they are tied in with feelings. They often have an ultimate goal of maximizing happiness and/or minimizing pain and suffering – both which deal with emotional or physical feelings. Let’s say there is someone who can only think and not feel at all (kind of like an android or complex computer) – no pain, no emotions, no desires – murdering this “person” wouldn’t be so bad (as long as they had no family who could feel emotions and grieve) precisely because there could be no fear, disappointment, or pain, but switch that hypothetical situation around – if someone could not think at the level of a human being but could feel 100%, death would still be a terrifying, painful experience. And that is why we base morals on feelings.
It is obvious that animals feel pain and emotions. This requires far less proof than the claim that animals can think. Anyone who has ever lived with a cat or dog knows that animals have emotions and can feel pain. Animals also have families and care for their offspring, just like humans do. They also show great distress when they or their offspring are in danger, just like humans do. There is even an account of a cat who kept returning into a burning building to carry each of her kittens to safety, even though she was already badly burned.
The thing is we don’t need meat to live. The only reason we kill is for taste. Is it truly worth putting a sentient being through hell (and I do mean hell – http://www.watchearthlings.com) just to have a few minutes of pleasure?

Here is an excellent post that elaborates on the issue of the value of human vs. nonhuman life – http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peter-singer-and-the-welfarist-position-on-the-lesser-value-of-nonhuman-life/

sooo… i don’t understand the “exploited animal” thing.

is a dog that serves as a seeing eye animal, a dog that is well feed/cared for/loved, and then put to sleep at the end of his/her life exploited?

what is the role of an animal? are pets okay? are they not supposed to play a role in our society at all? we domesticated animals to serve a purpose in our society, was that wrong?

i guess what i don’t understand about vegans is what they think animals are for. i mean, i think everyone earns its keep. like on a farm. horses work, chickens give eggs, dogs herd and protect.

Here is my response. I may want to elaborate more on this in the future, but I think I already hit one of the most important points that I would have wanted to make in that post.

Vegans are concerned because animals are exploited for unnecessary commercial products. The fact is that we can live healthfully and abundantly without consuming any animal products.

You can’t compare seeing-eye dogs and dogs as pets to animals exploited for food or clothing products. Dogs in these cases are usually seen as more than property – a beloved member of a family, like a child. Do you consider it “exploiting” your children because you force them to live under your care until they’re adults? Vegans are divided on the issue of seeing-eye dogs, but at least the dog is performing a very noble service that GREATLY helps a person and GREATLY enriches his or her quality of life for many years. Farm animals are usually treated terribly, kept in awful conditions, and killed in pain and dread just so someone can have a momentary gustatory pleasure that’s not even healthy – like a burger or a sausage.

As to your question – “why are animals here?” Let me ask you why are you here? Why am I here? Why is anyone here? There is no objective answer to this question. Wouldn’t it be best if we all let each other (including our fellow earthlings) decide the peaceful course of his or her own life?

Also, chickens don’t “give” eggs as much as you don’t “give” eggs to anyone when you ovulate. They are your eggs, not anyone else’s. Eggs are just part of a chicken’s menstrual cycle, and the nutrients found in eggs are there for the baby chick to eat as he or she grows. Not all dogs herd and protect. What about chihuahuas? Should we find them another purpose – kill them for meat perhaps? Most horses only work because we’ve forced them to and “broken” their spirits into being terrified to do anything but what we tell them. It’s almost as if you’re saying if something doesn’t have a clear purpose for human benefit, then we need to give them one no matter how much it infringes on their right to live life as they want. What would you say about a severely mentally handicapped human who can’t do much of anything and has no living family? What is that person here for? They can’t work a job and contribute to society. They don’t have a family to make happy. In fact, they’re probably a drain on society because tax dollars have to support them. But why do we allow them to live in society and still support them? Because life is valued by many as sacred. And vegans extend that reverence for life that most humans have for other human life to include animals as well. Believe it or not, some people used to say, what good are black people for anything other than to pick cotton as slaves? It’s the view that we can define another sentient, emotional being’s life that gets us into trouble.

Officer, Mike Fowler, said this has been one of the most gruesome acts he has dealt with in his 10 year career as an officer.

The pig, a bright 1 year old had been subjected to a gruesome attack as he grazed in a field with his friends and family.

Mrs Kingsbury, a school teacher, said: “This was an entirely species motivated attack.  That pig was killed and eaten purely because he’s of a different species to us – it’s not fair, he couldn’t change which species he was.”

Superintendent Terry Sherwood, of the National Animal Police Association, told the BBC’s Today programme that the murder was “an unequivocal indication that the cancer of speciesism is still here”.

“Unfortunately, young, innocent animals are subject to it, and I think it is a sad day,” he said. “I have every confidence that the police will catch these people and put them before the courts and demonstrate that we will not tolerate these abhorrent acts of speciesism on young, innocent animals.”

Speaking last night, the chief constable, Larry Sullivan, said: “It is a disgrace that a young pig has been brutally murdered. It is even worse when you think that the only reason for this attack was the victim’s species.”

“Any murder is awful, and this one is particularly abhorrent since the men have allegedly eaten the pig’s body. I can’t emphasise enough the part that the community and members of the public have in helping us to find those responsible for this despicable murder.”

“We are determined to arrest those responsible for committing this murder”"

When witnesses Ginny Messina and Leah Fiennes saw the pig being attacked, they ran off to get help, trying to flag down passing vehicles and banging on doors.

When they returned minutes later, they found him slumped on the ground with his throat slit and several parts of his body missing.

The local priest, Mrs Sanders, said that species related attacks are “entirely untypical of the community in which it happened”, which she described as “settled, peaceful, decent”.

I’ve just read Roger Yates’ blog post Neo-Welfarist Animal Liberationists where he introduces the term neo-welfare animal liberationists (N-WALs) in an attempt to use something that will be less objectionable to the people who Gary Francione terms new welfarists.

Traditional welfarists are people who care only about the treatment of animals but who support the use of animals for food, entertainment, research and other uses. Francione coined the term “new welfarist” to refer to those animal advocates who would like to see an end to such uses of animals but who believe that incremental welfare reforms will both ultimately lead to that goal and alleviate suffering in the meantime. Francione disagrees with this position and believes it undermines abolitionist efforts by presenting a confusing message, by making people more comfortable about their “humane” use of animals, by legitimizing and further entrenching the institution of animal slavery, and by taking away resources that would be better devoted to vegan education. Francione also argues, from his experience as a lawyer, animal rights theorist and activist, that such reforms do not lead to fewer deaths or substantially better conditions for nonhuman animals.

The so-called new welfarists object to the term because they feel it lumps them in with conventional welfarists. Since their ultimate goal is the abolition of the use of animals as property, the “new welfarists” find the term offensive and misleading, and they point out that pursuing welfare reforms is only one part of a multi-pronged approach which also includes vegan education. They call themselves abolitionists since they advocate welfarism (among other approaches) as a way of moving towards abolitionism. They believe welfare reform will lead to shifting attitudes that will eventually lead to an end to animal abuse. Francione and some of his supporters argue that the label new welfarists is accurate simply because they promote welfare reforms, and the largest such organizations like PeTA devote most of their resources to promoting and publicizing welfare reform measures. Francione and Dan Cudahy, one of the commenters below, insist that new welfarism and abolitionism have nothing to do with each other.

Yates agrees that the new welfarist label is accurate but was hoping to find a term that the so-called new welfarists would be comfortable with. He is concerned with the fact that the term “animal rights” has lost the clear original meaning in which Francione and Regan use it. He believes that the so-called new welfarists are rightly called abolitionists, but should not associate themselves with the animal rights term or movement. I think this is an interesting point, although I’m not sure I agree with it, since some of the people in this group are in favor of animal rights, even if the leadership of PeTA approaches the issue from a utilitarian rather than a rights-based philosophy.

By way of background for those who are unfamiliar with utilitarian philosophy, utilitarianism generally deals with maximizing happiness/pleasure and minimizing suffering/unhappiness. The preference utilitarian view of Peter Singer  is based on equal consideration of interests, which may lead to different treatment and different rights. According to utilitarians, rights are relevant only to the extent that they increase or decrease happiness or the ability to pursue one’s interests. That’s why rights-based abolitionists object so strongly to the term “animal rights” being used by or applied to PeTA and to followers of Singer. Singer is a utilitarian and has never been interested in rights, although unfortunately on occasion he has used the term for the sake of convenience which has led to some confusion. The fact that he has been called “The Father of the Animal Rights Movement” (which even he finds strange) further adds to the confusion.

Utilitarians don’t object to the use of either nonhumans or humans, as long as no suffering is involved. Singer does not object to the use of animals for food or for other purposes that involve their death because he believes that while animals have an interest in the quality of their lives, they have no interest in continuing to live. He has no moral objection to using nonhumans for food as long as they are raised and slaughtered humanely. He has also said that there are possible scenarios where painful vivisection might be morally acceptable if the gain to humans were great enough.

It should be noted that not all utilitarians think alike. Negative utilitarians put more emphasis on the reduction of suffering than on the maximization of happiness. Negative utilitarian philosopher David Pearce does not agree with Singer that it’s morally acceptable to use and kill nonhuman animals for food, no matter how humanely they are treated. He does not believe that any experiment on nonhumans is acceptable that would not also be acceptable if performed on humans. Pearce has also pointed out that utilitarian and rights-based approaches are not necessarily incompatible.

I like the fact that Yates tried to come up with a term that the “new welfarists” would not object to, and I also think it would be good if those who do support rights were differentiated from the utilitarian ones who don’t. Yates says his proposed name was not well-received. If anyone has suggestions for names, please mention them in the comments. Maybe something that suggests the multi-pronged approach they take?

Yates’ blog post led to a long discussion in the comments section about different abolitionist approaches, between Matt, a reader who would be considered a new welfarist by Francione (but who himself rejects the term) and Roger Yates, Dan Cudahy and Gary Francione. The exchange went on for over a month and is more than 30,000 words long. It is often repetitive but there are some interesting things brought up on both sides. I have summarized some of the main points and given excerpts here, but at the very least I recommend reading the initial post, reader Matt’s initial comment and Roger Yates’ response. If you read on and want to give up reading after Gary Francione’s two comments, you won’t miss much.

One of the things discussed in the comments was the common objection that Francione-type abolitionism is too hard and too radical for most people, or at the very least too inconvenient. I tend to agree with the people who argue that it really isn’t that hard, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that most people still aren’t willing to do it. And no matter how hard it is, I’m surprised when the difficulty of becoming vegan is used as an argument for supporting welfarist reforms as it is here by Matt, the “new welfarist.” The difficulty of becoming vegan is not related to the number or effectiveness of welfare reforms enacted. People’s continued resistance is an indication that we need to find ways to make it easier and more convenient to become vegan, both dietarily and socially. I think it would be worthwhile to devote more resources to getting more and better meat and cheese alternatives on the market, and making vegan choices more accessible and more socially acceptable. I also agree with Dan, who wrote: “The more vegan education that happens, the easier it will be to go vegan.”

Here’s my summary/abridged version of the post and the comments that followed. As you are reading, please keep in mind that this is not the complete exchange. I’ve attempted to pull out the most important points and remove most of the parts that are repetitive, irrelevant, and merely argumentative, and in so doing, shaved off about 25,000 words. It’s possible that the people involved in the discussion would object to having only parts of their arguments read, so to get a truly accurate understanding of the views represented, please read the whole thing. This is just to give an overall impression of the discussion and what seemed like the most important parts to me.

Roger Yates starts out by reprinting excerpts from earlier forum posts of his:

I think I might try the notion of ‘neo-welfare animal liberationists’ (N-WALs) to differentiate such people from rights-based animal rights advocates for a while.

My chief concern is misrepresentation. As we know the KFC campaign is led by PeTA who insist on (1) calling themselves the ‘biggest animal rights organisation in the world’ while adopting Peter Singer’s utilitarianism for their philosophy on human-nonhuman relations and (2) deliberately calling Singer’s position a rights-based one consisting of animal rights philosophy.
The latter is a blatant lie but they care not about that. For his part, Singer tells me to stop wasting my time trying to persuade PeTA to alter their claims. Since I realise that Singer regards moral rights as ‘nonsense’, following Bentham, I cannot expect him to care much about the aspirations of rights-based animal advocates. It seems that PeTA are in the same boat.

In recent debates involving two leading reps of PeTA they both said that they use the term ‘rights’ as a convenience (Singer uses rights as ‘political shorthand’).

…

Neo-welfare animal liberationists believe that their reforms can lead to animal rights – they would seriously claim that ‘pushing’ KFC to gas chickens is a step toward that goal. So, in this sense, in the internal logic of the argument, they are entitled to regard themselves as abolitionists – what they cannot do is characterise themselves as animal rights advocates without doing violence to animal rights theory.

and:-

One major problem with it is that we have the major organisations within the animal protection movement moving AWAY from veganism and presenting veganism as just another option. Neo-welfare animal liberationists use terms like ‘veg*n’ and use the terms ‘vegan’ and vegetarian’ interchangeably as though they are in the same ethical region.

They certify meats as ‘humane’ and suggest that one can be a ‘conscientious omnivore’. Francione points out that Singer has begun to talk about veganism as a ‘fanatical’ position and suggests that advocates can have the ‘luxury’ of not being vegan sometimes – but he always did have such views in terms of the logic of his utilitarian position which is not opposed to killing nonhumans painlessly and replacing them with others and has said consistently since Animal Liberation that he cannot see a major ethical problem with free range farming. Essentially his position is firm on factory farming from the cruelty angle but then it gets all wobbly on less intensive use systems.

Yates summarizes by writing: “I am less concerned that such groups regard themselves as abolitionists than the fact that they may be characterised as animal rights mobilisations.”

A commenter named Matt attempted to explain his position. He is what Francione would call a new welfarist, but he considers himself an incremental abolitionist (a term that many Francione supporters would like to claim for themselves). He writes: “Some animal rights activists see welfare reforms as a pragmatic method to realize the goal of animal liberation… No abolitionist would support a welfarist organization.”

He is offended by Francione’s term new welfarist and his position in general towards anyone who supports welfare reforms for any reason. “Francione deliberately used the term ‘new welfarist’ to refer to abolitionists who take the incremental, welfare reform, approach to animal liberation because it is inflammatory and insulting.”

He points out that he is in favor of vegan education but wants to do other things to reduce the suffering of animals in the meantime. “I think that we certainly should advocate veganism to the general public. Everyone can change his or her own diet and lifestyle. But, in the meantime, while we work on getting people to go vegan, billions of animals are still suffering on factory farms and agribusiness is profiting.”

Yates responds to some examples given by Matt of welfare reforms that he (Matt) believes could lead to reduced animal use.

I do know that some advocates say one can successfully use animal welfarism ‘tactically’ to end some animal use. You say the Chicago example is such a case. Eliminate the use of bullhooks, you say, and bingo!, end of elephant circuses. Why? Elephants cannot be controlled without them? There is no substitute for a bullhook? Let us say you are right and the advocates are ‘tactically’ calling for the end of bullhook use because it is cruel and harms the welfare of the elephants and the public might agree. The circus people say they must use bullhooks but accept there are cruel and non-cruel ways of using them. Since we are in the purview of animal welfarism, those who decide this matter are likely to apply the welfarist ‘cornerstone’ concept of not causing ‘unnecessary suffering’ and ask, ‘how do circuses usually control elephants.’

It is pretty likely that the result will be a tightening of the regulation of elephant use by the means of bullhooks – the complaint is articulated around the cruelty, not the use or control, right? So, already we get embroiled in the messy business of regulating atrocities. In the meantime, energy, money and time will have been diverted away from vegan education: the very best thing we can engage in for animal rights.

Too often this false choice is presented: do vegan education that gets virtually nowhere and takes hundreds of years –v- bringing about meaningful welfare reforms which really help nonhuman animals and can be achieved quickly.

You talk about the gestation crate ban in Florida. This is an animal rights goal, is it, to get these crates banned in Florida? Do people in Florida eat less pig flesh as a result or does it get shipped in? For vegans in Florida, of course, it matters not where the bits of pigs come from because they do not eat pigs. What’s the score in Florida now, animal welfare-wise? Do you have any way of telling? Do you know, for example, if you can be sure – is there any way of measuring – that more pig flesh from places with worse welfare standards than originally pertained in Florida is not being sold there now? Overall, welfare-wise, is it not possible that the situation is worse now? I am far from sure that these welfare measures do all that is claimed for them. After all, most often the nonhumans concerned are left in the hands of the same speciesists who were exploiting them before.

…

In his work, Francione explains the merits of the abolitionist position, which you say he does not do fairly.However, I suspect you mean by this that the rights-based position contains within it a critique of animal welfarism, be it traditional or new. but developed during and since Francione was acting as PeTA’s lawyer and after he began to see how the animal protection movement was busy watering down the notion of veganism as a baseline position and relying more and more on welfare reforms for their ‘victories’….

You write, “Everyone can change his or her own diet and lifestyle. But, in the meantime, while we work on getting people to go vegan, billions of animals are still suffering on factory farms and agribusiness is profiting.” Is it not the case that, while we work on anything, billions of animals will suffer on factory farms? The issue is what we work on, why, and what our claims-making is based on. Or, are we back to the notion that welfare comes easy and quickly and with meaningful change while abolition or rights will never come?

Matt responds:

… In my experience the people in the trenches often view things more pragmatically than the theorists. I think Martin Balluch wrote a great analysis of this pragmatic approach to animal liberation here:
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/20080325Abolitionism/index_en.php
…

In my own experience, I have noticed similar changes in people’s view of animals because of welfare concerns. I used to think that vegan advocacy was the most important thing to do because more animals are suffering in the “food animal” industries than any other industry and because if someone goes vegan they are likely to also reject fur, animal testing and animal based circuses. But then I started to meet a lot of people who were outraged by the abuse of elephants in the circus who started to get more involved in animal rights and eventually decided to go vegan. Many of these people said they would have never considered veganism before because they thought it was too radical. But after becoming more exposed to the concept of veganism and animal rights through a moderate animal welfare reform campaign such as banning bullhooks in Chicago, the concepts of veganism and animal rights started to seem less daunting to them.

In the same way, Prop 2 in California was clearly an animal welfare campaign with no obvious animal rights agenda. However, millions of people were exposed to the atrocities of factory farming because of Prop 2. Many of these people never considered animal rights or veganism because they thought it was too radical. But after being exposed to the issue via a more moderate campaign they started to think about the issues differently and eventually went vegan and became ardent animal rights supporters.

In my experience, pure vegan education is meaningful and we should all be doing that. But when we fail to recognize that welfare reforms can also play a significant role in moving society’s attitudes about animals along the continuum toward animal rights then we are missing something very important. Relatively few people are prepared to make a radical change in their lives. We are social animals and going against the norm is so extremely uncomfortable that many of us would rather die than be considered radical or worse, an outcast from society.

If we are to succeed as animal rights activists, we have to move away from this “all or nothing” mentality and start to work within the framework of human psychology and sociology. Welfare reforms play a very important role in moving society as a whole toward considering the rights of animals more seriously. As more people start to consider animal rights, the pure vegan education methodology will become more effective. Ideally, we will reach the critical mass needed to overturn the pervading dogma that humans can treat other animals however they please.

But again, my problem with Francione and others is the intentionally divisive and slanderous rhetoric they use against people and organization that are on his side. He can disagree with the methods of PETA and others all he wants and in some cases I may even agree with him. But when he falsely labels animal rights activists who see the importance of welfare reforms for the realization of animal rights as people who think it is okay to use animals (or welfarists) than I take issue with his position… We are all on the same side, but as long as there are those who will slander the positions of those with whom they disagree, we are not going to get anywhere.

…

I do not think it is okay to use animals for any reason. However, I also realize that the majority of society is at the opposite end of the continuum from me and I think that welfare reforms can be used as a sort of bridge to bring people over to my way of thinking. Very few people are willing to leap across a vast ideological chasm, but many will take a bridge across if you make one available to them.

At this point Dan Cudahy joins the discussion and writes:

Even if I were to accept your position on advocacy (and I do not at all), the facts are that the majority of the money and effort of the corporate welfare organizations that Francione criticizes goes toward welfare reform and goes toward welfare reform as a matter of Singer-style utilitarian *principle*.

PETA and HSUS are the abolitionist movements biggest obstacles. Yes, they are bigger obstacles than agribusiness itself because the public looks to them as the “authority” on “animal rights”. That is pathetic and disturbing, but true.

Matt responds to Dan with:

I think the ultimate goal of an animal rights advocate should be the abolition of the human use of animals for any reason. Right? It doesn’t so much matter to me if that goal is realized through welfare reforms that lead to eventual animal liberation or the purist abolitionist approach if that can lead to animal liberation. All I am interested in is getting to animal liberation.If you call someone a welfarist you are saying that they think it is okay to use animals if it done so “humanely.” If you call someone who believes in total animal liberation as a goal and the welfare reform approach as a method a welfarist then you are not only being inaccurate, but you are being insulting and divisive.

…PETA clearly states that it believes animals are not ours to use for food, for clothing, for entertainment, for research or for any other reason. PETA thinks that the way to realize its goals of attaining 100% animal liberation may be to work for welfare reforms that serve to educate the public and cripple or weaken the industries involved in exploiting animals. You may disagree with PETA’s approach, but you would be disingenuous to call it a welfarist organization.

Dan’s response to that was:

PETA and HSUS have a ton of money, yet PETA uses most of it for welfarism. HSUS doesn’t even have the word “vegan” on their website (unless they’ve recently added it, which I seriously doubt). These groups could finance major public vegan education campaigns, teach people how and why to go vegan, but it’s more lucrative to buddy up to corporate agribusiness in an industry- welfarist partnership, so that’s what they do….The way I see it, there are two movements: 1) the abolitionist movement, which promotes veganism as the only way to respect the important interests of sentient nonhumans and rejects and criticizes any and all forms of welfare reform, whether the reform is thought to be an end in itself or a means to an end; and 2) the welfarist movement, which consists of everyone who wants to reform animal exploitation and murder, some as an end in itself and others as a means or “tool” to “reduce suffering”, sometimes even to “dismantle factory farming” and wants to get along and go along with animal exploiters of all stripes, as long as they reform or “take a step in the right direction” (which is welfarese for “VICTORY! Send us your donations!).

…For more information on why I think like I do and for many more arguments, read Gary Francione’s Rain Without Thunder (have you bothered to read that book?); read all of Francione’s blog, and read the following links:

http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1014.html
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/08/proven-beyond-reasonable-doubt.html
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/picking-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong.html
http://abolitionistanimalrights.blogspot.com/index.htmlMatt responds:

I would only support welfare reforms that were strategically designed to educate the public about veganism and to cripple the ability of animal exploiting industries to exploit animals. Welfarist ideology has no place in the animal rights movement. Welfarist tactics can sometimes be used to achieve animal rights goals.You say: “PETA and HSUS have a ton of money, yet PETA uses most of it for welfarism. HSUS doesn’t even have the word “vegan” on their website (unless they’ve recently added it, which I seriously doubt). These groups could finance major public vegan education campaigns, teach people how and why to go vegan, but it’s more lucrative to buddy up to corporate agribusiness in an industry- welfarist partnership, so that’s what they do.”

PETA’s annual budget is about $30 million. HSUS’s annual budget is about “$120 million. KFC’s annual advertising budget is about $200 million. $30 million dollars may sound like a lot to you and me, but when you consider that PETA’s entire budget is only a small fraction of just one fast food companies advertising budget, you start to see that PETA isn’t really that rich after all. PETA could spend its entire budget on vegan advertising and still not come close to the advertising capabilities of just one fast food company.

In addition to promoting some welfare reforms in the industry, PETA does a lot of vegan education. It’s website GoVeg.com is an award winning website that surely has convinced hundreds of thousands of people to go vegan: GoVeg.com: http://www.goveg.com/. GoVeg.com has lots of tips for activists to promote veganism and PETA will even give activists free materials and lots of personal advice to promote veganism. I have gotten thousands of dollars worth of free vegan promotional literature from PETA over the years. It’s http://www.vegcooking.com is designed to help the restaurant industry add vegan options to menus and provides restaurants and chefs with the resources they need to offer vegan items to customers. It also has lots of advice and resources for activists to use to promote veganism to the restaurants in their areas. Nowhere, on any PETA website do they promote anything that isn’t vegan. They don’t promote “humane” meat, dairy, eggs, honey, silk or anything else. It’s all 100% vegan. All of their literature promotes 100% veganism. At the same time PETA promotes veganism, it also uses other methods (some I agree with, others I don’t) in an effort to promote kindness to animals and ultimately achieve animal liberation. It’s a multi-pronged approach.

When a vastly weaker army is confronted with a vastly superior army, the weaker army has to make compromises. It has to sacrifice some of its soldiers. It has to use guerilla tactics, espionage, and many other methods all together in a concerted effort to even stand a chance of victory…. A multiplicity of methods is in order. That doesn’t mean that every tactic that someone comes up with is right, it just means that we need to be open to any and all ideas if we are going to win this war. Saying you have the one and only right answer is just not going to cut it.

…

If we can bring people who are way on the other side of the fence a little closer to our position with welfarist reforms then I support that. Once those people start agreeing that animals deserve some consideration that may make it easier to use vegan education to bring them 100% in line with our ideology. I think that if we don’t offer some way for people who think that veganism and animal rights is too far removed from their current worldview to even consider some way to come closer to understanding our position, we are never going to win those people over – and sadly, those people make up the majority of the population.I’ve read almost all of the links you have provided already. I have been engaged in this debate for some time. I agree 100% with the animal rights ideology. I don’t disagree with the method of vegan education. I just don’t think that Francione and others who advocate for only vegan education and nothing else have convinced me of their position.

…

If PETA needs to promote some rather minor welfarist “victories” to keep the morale of its activist base up, to raise money to continue the fight, to get activists motivated and optimistic enough to keep working for animal liberation, then I say good for them. Promote every little victory that you can. Keep the conversations going. Keep the industry backpeddling.

Dan responds:

*Vegan Education Paradoxically Helps Encourage Welfare Reform*Vegan education – because of its inherent nature of educating about animal agriculture (among several other things) – paradoxically encourages welfare reform. One of three broad reactions arise when people are faced with vegan education as it relates to animal ag education: 1) indifference or sadistic enjoyment; 2) aversion, but not enough aversion to go vegan, and 3) aversion sufficient to go vegan. The group in category 2 are the ones who get interested in happy meat and welfare reform. They are a large, wealthy, and growing part of the population in industrialized nations. They are the ones buying happy meat, maybe going l-o veg, supporting HSUS and often PETA (they make up the vast majority of PETAs membership). Vegan education helps their ranks grow and does not hinder their progress except for a few of them eventual get exposed to enough vegan education to go vegan.

*Welfare Reform Hinders Vegan Education*

Welfare reform, on the other hand, not only has no causal nexus to veganism, but actually hinders efforts at vegan education by reinforcing the status quo that there’s no real need for veganism, especially when groups like HSUS and PETA are endorsing it. Sadly, the general public looks to HSUS and PETA as the authority on what “animal rights” people think. The general public is not aware of the differences between Gary Francione and PETA/Singer, and the differences are enormous. When PETA strikes a deal with KFC Canada, the public looks at it as an endorsement of KFC, and it is an endorsement!

*Welfarist Abolitionism: An Inherent Contradiction*

Which brings me to another point: the inherent contradiction of combining welfare reform efforts with efforts at vegan education and abolition. Lately, I’ve seen some new welfarists (what you call “incremental abolitionists”) criticize ‘humane’ animal products. Now these are folks who are vegan and should criticize ‘humane’ animal products – that’s not the problem at all. The problem is that these people see criticizing support for welfare reforms as “divisive”, thereby lending support to ‘humane’ animal products. So on one hand, they are supporting welfare reform, but on the other hand, they are criticizing ‘humane’ animal products. This is contradictory. The lunacy must stop.

*A Philosophical Difference: The Primary Reason We’ll Never Agree at the Superficial Level Unless We Agree Philosophically*

Abolitionists are concerned to abolish the use or exploitation of animals. The use or exploitation is the core issue for abolitionists. We think of less cruel treatment as better than more cruel treatment, but treatment is not the core issue. The abolitionist view is essentially a deontological view (I say “essentially” because there are nuances within the broader deontological view and in meta-ethics on which abolitionists may disagree).

Welfarists and new welfarists (what you call “incremental abolitionists” [which, remember, is what I call us]) are concerned primarily about the treatment of animals. It would be fine and good with PETA, et al, if we all went vegan. That is, new welfarists think of abolition as better than no abolition, but the core issue for new welfarists is treatment. The new welfarist view is essentially utilitarian (again, “essentially” because there are also nuances here).

…

Abolitionists know as well as anyone that welfarism isn’t going away any sooner than animal exploitation is going away. Our criticism of welfarism in all forms is literally a criticism of animal exploitation itself. We will continue to state our case, and as Roger says, make our claims.

If people are receptive to welfare reform but not to veganism, it is because welfare reform requires either nothing or almost nothing from them, while veganism requires them to actually respect animals and the rights of animals (which REALLY is NOT that difficult!, welfarist claims notwithstanding).

Matt responds:

You say: “Welfare reform is always about bogus notions of ‘humane’ animal products for non-vegans.”Not true. Welfare reforms are about taking positive steps in the right direction toward alleviate unnecessary suffering for animals. They are about educating the public and making it more difficult for animal exploiters to do business. Abolitionists like myself do not see welfare reforms as an end point, but rather as a necessary rung in the ladder. Once battery cages are banned we don’t sit on our laurels, we start working on the next step toward abolishing the use of chickens altogether.

You say: “vegan education is the *only* thing that can possibly lead to more vegans”

That contradicts my own experience. In fact, I have witnessed many more people come to veganism through welfare reform activism than through direct vegan education. Like it or not, veganism and animal rights are considered “radical” and “scary” concepts. They exist outside the social norm and few people are willing to step outside of social norms and make changes to their lifestyle that could turn them into outcasts from society. However, many people care about animals and will get involved in a fight to alleviate their suffering. Many of the people who get involved in welfare reform campaigns do eventually lose their fear of social ostracism and take the plunge into veganism. I’ve witnessed it many times first hand.

You say: “Vegan Education Paradoxically Helps Encourage Welfare Reform”

Yes, that’s true.

You say that “welfare reform, on the other hand, not only has no causal nexus to veganism, but actually hinders efforts at vegan education by reinforcing the status quo that there’s no real need for veganism”

Not true. Welfare reform campaigns have a wider reach than vegan education alone because welfare reforms are easier (less radical) for the mainstream media. Since a greater number of people are reached via a welfare campaign, and many people choose to go vegan and adopt an animal rights philosophy after becoming involved in a welfare campaign, these welfare reform actions actually are great tools for introducing people to veganism. Compared to the number of these animal welfare reform advocates who go vegan after getting involved in a welfare campaign that is coupled with vegan education, I believe there are relatively few animal welfare reform advocates who decide to go the “humane” animal products route.

As for the general public, yes, welfare campaigns do encourage members of the general public to purchase “humane” animal products. But vegan education alone doesn’t convince the general public to do anything at all because veganism is so far outside the social norms.

So yes, when PETA strikes a deal with KFC to improve its welfare standards and offer vegan meal options, it is an endorsement of KFC. The general public will now think that KFC is better than other chicken joints. Now, those other chicken joints will have to make similar welfare reforms in order to compete with KFC. The chicken industry will now have to put a lot of time, money and energy into changing its business practices. That means less time and money that can be spent on advertising. The animals, though still killed and exploited, may have slightly better lives. Now the general public knows they can eat something vegan even at places like KFC, so veganism doesn’t seem so hard or outside of the social norms anymore. Now PETA’s vegan education efforts will be more successful. Many animal welfare advocates who were involved in the KFC campaign have become vegan after learning so much about the industry and by becoming more at ease with the vegan lifestyle through regular exposure to it. Sure, the general public takes PETA’s deal with KFC as an endorsement. So what? It wasn’t a final victory for the animals, but it was a major step in the right direction.

You say: “The problem is that these people see criticizing support for welfare reforms as “divisive”, thereby lending support to ‘humane’ animal products. So on one hand, they are supporting welfare reform, but on the other hand, they are criticizing ‘humane’ animal products. This is contradictory.”

I don’t think there is a contradiction at all. I am saying very clearly that it is not okay to use animals, even if it is done “humanely.” I can still support a campaign that educates people about animal rights and makes it harder for those who exploit animals to do business. You can believe in animal rights and still support campaigns aimed at eliminating the worst abuses of animals. If that makes some people think it is okay to eat “humane” meat, I can’t help that. Most of those people were eating meat anyway. But I can tell you from my own experiences that many people who eat meat and get involved in a welfare reform campaign end up going vegan.

You say: “Abolitionists are concerned to abolish the use or exploitation of animals.”

Yes, I agree. So the term abolitionist can be applied to myself and to groups like PETA.

You say: “Welfarists and new welfarists… are concerned primarily about the treatment of animals.”

That’s not entirely true. Welfarists are concerned primarily about the treatment of animals. “New welfarists” are concerned with to abolish the use or exploitation of animals and think that welfare reforms may help achieve that goal. Since so called “new welfarists” are primarily concerned to abolish the use or exploitation of animals, then they are abolitionists, not welfarists. The term welfarist is viewed as insulting and inaccurate to people who fall into this category because their primary concern is to abolish the exploitation of animals. The term welfarist implies otherwise and so I take issue with that word. I believe that Francione and others who use this word understand this point, but use the term welfarist anyway because it is so divisive.

…

“Neo-welfare animal liberationists” is certainly a better term because it at least includes these people in with the animal liberationists. Use whatever term you like. If you want people like me to agree with your position, then best to use a less offensive term.

You say: “If people are receptive to welfare reform but not to veganism, it is because welfare reform requires either nothing or almost nothing from them, while veganism requires them to actually respect animals and the rights of animals.”

Very true. Veganism also requires that people become social outcasts (in many circumstances). I’m not saying it isn’t possible or necessary (I went vegan overnight without a second thought) but going vegan in a non-vegan world does make life a lot more complicated. Some people simply do not have the will or the drive to stick with it for long. That’s why I think we need to strike at the roots – or chip away at the animal exploiter’s ability to do business. If it is more expensive, less convenient and less socially acceptable to eat factory farmed meat, then people will eat less of it and/or go vegan. If it then becomes more expensive, less convenient and less socially acceptable to eat “humane” meat, then people will eat less of it and more people will go vegan.

Dan responds:

You claim that welfare reforms make it more difficult for animal exploiters to do business. I disagree. I think welfare reforms are a strategic opportunity for animal exploiters to make people feel better about exploiting animals. I think welfare reforms are a “win-win” for corporate welfare organizations (like PETA) and industry. PETA gets victories and more donations. Industry gets moral public support from the welfare organizations.

It may be true that, as you say, many people who started out in welfare campaigns went vegan, but if you think that correlation is causal, I disagree. I think it is because they were exposed to vegan education and had contact with vegans. It is vegan education and the contact with vegans that *caused* these people to go vegan, not the welfare campaigns themselves. The only legitimate point you might have here is that welfare campaigns may attract the kind of non-vegans who are more likely to be influenced by vegan education, but to claim a causal connection is mistaken. Further, there are probably less expensive ways of attracting the kind of non-vegans who would be receptive to veganism than welfare reform campaigns.

You say that compared to the number of people who go vegan after getting involved in a welfare campaign coupled with vegan education, the number of people who decide to go the ‘humane’ animal products route are relatively few. That is hard to believe. However, I could believe it if the vegan education component is very strong among those involved, and perhaps it is. But that would only reinforce my claim that it is vegan education that is the cause of veganism, not welfare reform campaigns. In my experience, people who really believe in ‘humane’ animal products DON’T go vegan. In my experience, it takes serious vegan education to break people of the belief that ‘humane’ animal products are okay.

…

I think you wildly overestimate the economic burden of KFC, et al, changing its business practices. Here’s a question for you, Matt: Why do PETA and HSUS present welfare reforms in terms of their profitability to animal exploiters? The fact is, industry has been seriously looking into gassing chickens CAK (or CAS) for a few years now because of *profitability*. Yes, CAK requires less personnel costs, results in less damage to chicken carcasses, and over time, the capital investment is supposed to pay off huge. Not to mention the profitability that comes from better PR. Further, it is questionable how much less chickens will suffer since they will still be handled cruelly in transportation, including all of the sadistic torture that bored workers put them through. For more information on the profitability of CAK, see the following link:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=144#more-144

Francione and others (including myself) use “new welfarist” because it is accurate as defined and we are frustrated with the overwhelming focus of time and effort of the likes of PETA and Farm Sanctuary, including many vegans, on welfare reform efforts. We are also frustrated with the idea of veganism as merely “a(n) (optional) tool to reduce suffering” and merely “a boycott of cruelty” rather than as a moral baseline, or minimum standard, of a movement that seeks to abolish animal exploitation. When people see veganism as a “tool” or a “boycott”, it is no wonder that they go back to eating ‘humane’ animal products after they find animal products that they consider ‘humane’.

PETA promotes Peter Singer as the “Father of the Animal Rights Movement”, but Singer sees nothing wrong with consuming so-called ‘humane’ animal products. As long as PETA, et al, promote welfare reform, don’t see veganism as a moral baseline or minimum acceptable standard, and promote Singer as “our father”, we will call PETA, et al, new welfarists.

…

I disagree with you 100% that veganism “requires that people become social outcasts (in many circumstances)”. Wow. I’m almost speechless. While it is true that veganism can be extremely difficult for children due to parents, even up through high school, for normal adults veganism most certainly does NOT require one to “become [a] social outcast.” Matt, I live in the middle of ranch and rodeo country. I’m a partner in a CPA firm. Most of my clients (which are mostly local governments), many of them in very rural, animal exploiting ranch and rodeo areas, know I’m vegan and they also know why. They get along with me fine. In fact, most of them love working with me. I even go to lunch with them occasionally and if there is any avoidance of lunch, it’s on my end, not theirs. I have non-vegan friends, most of whom I’ve had since before I went vegan. I’m anything but a social outcast. Granted, if I started bringing up veganism all the time, I probably would be shunned to the extent that I did. But with people I deal with on a regular basis, I think living by example is the best advocacy. They will come to respect “radical abolitionist animal rights activists” by knowing and getting along with me for years. They may even go vegan themselves someday. People don’t refuse veganism because they’re afraid of being social outcasts (with a few exceptions); rather, they refuse it because they are not sufficiently educated about veganism (the how and why and how good vegan food actually is) and because it is socially acceptable to be non-vegan. We really have to get away from this notion that “veganism is difficult” if we are to move forward at all.

…

You talk about making it easier to go vegan. The more vegan education that happens, the easier it will be to go vegan.

You say you support the banning of battery cages, but oppose “cage-free eggs”. Public support of banning cages, especially heavy public support (e.g. PETA), is an implicit support of cage-free eggs, whether you like it or not. We can use battery cage information, slaughtering method information, and other information in our vegan education, but we should always criticize all exploitation of all forms. Because of our use of cage information in our vegan education materials, industry might try to eliminate them as a strategy move, but we should not be their advisers on how to exploit animals “better”. This speaks to the point I made earlier that you ignored: new welfarists are concerned primarily with *treatment* or *how* animals are exploited, and eventually want abolition, but now is not the time for that. Abolitionists are concerned primarily with abolishing exploitation eventually and incrementally via vegan education and see welfare reform as a strategic goal of animal exploiters.

Matt responds:

I admit that it is vegan education that “causes” people to go vegan in the scenario I presented, but it is the welfare reform campaign that attracted their interest to begin with. Without the welfare campaign, many people who view veganism as too radical will not even consider going vegan. That is why I say you sometimes need both the welfare reform campaign and the vegan education working together – like PETA does.

…

PETA promotes Singer as the “father of the animal rights movement” because he is historically viewed as such. His book Animal Liberation may have inspired PETA, but he isn’t on PETA’s board nor does he have any direct influence on the organization. Equating PETA with Peter Singer is another one of the misleading tactics that Francione uses that I find unpalatable. PETA cannot be held responsible for everything that every animal rights or animal welfare advocate ever says. PETA only has control over its own messaging.

…

As long as PETA’s goal is animal liberation and the organization offers some reasonable justifications for its welfare reform efforts as a means to achieve animal liberation, one can justifiably call PETA an abolitionist organization. I’m sorry if you are confused by the concept of promoting veganism and animal liberation while at the same time working on welfare reforms aimed at chipping away at the foundation of animal exploitation. But again, as I’ve explained, I think vegan education and welfare reforms can work together to gain more ground than either tactic can do alone.

…

Martin Balluch’s analysis of this combined approach has empirical support behind it.
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/20080325Abolitionism

…

The number one reason why people don’t go vegan is that they don’t think it’s convenient enough, and we all know people whose reason for not going vegan is that they “can’t” give up cheese or ice cream. But instead of making it easier for them to help animals, we often make it more difficult. Instead of encouraging them to stop eating all other animal products besides cheese or ice cream, we preach to them about the oppression of dairy cows. Then we go on about how we don’t eat sugar or a veggie burger because of the bun, even though a tiny bit of butter flavor in a bun contributes to significantly less suffering than any non-organic fruit or vegetable does or a plastic bottle or about 100 other things that most of us use. Our fanatical obsession with ingredients, or being 100% pure, not only obscures the animals’ suffering—which was virtually non-existent for that tiny modicum of ingredient—but also nearly guarantees that those around us are not going to make any change at all. So, we’ve preserved our personal purity, but we’ve hurt animals—and that’s anti-vegan.

The same is true of activism. If we strive to be 100% pure in our vegan activism efforts, we sometimes run the risk of turning people off, or making it less likely they will become vegan. If we make it less likely that other people will go vegan, then we are hurting animals and hurting our chances of achieving animal liberation. So, if a welfare reform campaign can serve to open people up to the idea of veganism, then I support that welfare campaign.

Gary Francione joins the conversation with:

Dear Everyone:

What Matt and others like him do not seem to understand is that we are not “on the same side,” as Matt seems to think. I see groups such as PETA doing nothing more than making animal exploitation more acceptable and further enmeshing animals in the property paradigm. In many ways, PETA has developed into the most significant impediment to meaningful social change for nonhuman animals.

Moreover, Matt’s rhetoric reflects the unfortunately cult-like atmosphere that characterizes the new welfarist movement. Discussion is not permitted. Anyone who disagrees is “divisive.” Matt does not address the substantive arguments that I make. He just says that I should not make them because they are “divisive.” Such an approach does nothing to facilitate the progress of ideas. And discourse can only be “divisive” if there is a unity to divide. There isn’t.

I continue to believe that those who endorse the abolitionist approach spend their time and resources educating the general public about veganism in creative and nonviolent ways. Let the new welfarists, animal protectionists, animal liberationists, or whatever you call them, go naked rather than wear fur, promote the gassing of chickens, or give awards to Temple Grandin. We are really involved in fundamentally different enterprises.

….

If X promotes welfare reform and Y characterizes X as a welfarist, then that is an empirically accurate description. The fact that X believes that welfare reform will lead to abolition someday (despite the complete absence of any empirical evidence supporting that belief) does not mean that X is not a welfarist. I characterize such people as “new welfarists” because they differ (in certain respects) from most of the classical welfarists. But the bottom line remains the same: if X promotes welfare reform, X is a welfarist. Whether X hopes to achieve abolition, or hopes to secure more and more welfare, is really irrelevant. X is a welfarist. No “slander.” No “mudslinging.” Just a plain old empirical fact.

I note that you keep using the expression “animal liberation.” You should know that this expression is usually applied to those who subscribe to the views of Peter Singer. And Peter Singer certainly does not advocate abolition as the ultimate goal. He maintains that animal use can be morally acceptable if our treatment of nonhumans gives greater weight to animal interests.

Matt objects again to being characterized as a welfarist: “You say that supporting welfare reform means you are a welfarist. This is not true because the word welfarist refers to an ideology that views animals as property and welfare reform refers to a tactic to improve the lives of animals. One can be in favor of improving the lives of animals and not view animals as property.”

The discussion between Matt and Dan continues without any progress being made…

If you could have a pet cow that you could milk yourself (painlessly) to get butter, cheese, milk – would you eat dairy products?

That’s a really great question. And I’ve often thought that I’d be OK with it as long as the cow had a great, natural life and lived to a natural death. I never imagined ever getting ambitious enough to own a cow though. Now, after being vegan for over a year, I’ve had time to continue to think about many things as well as fully experience a nondairy life, and I realized I wouldn’t even do this. I don’t think animal products should ever be used unless there is no other alternative, and you are starving. The thing with backyard cows is you’d most likely have to buy one from someone who breeds cows. Who knows about the ethics of that breeder, and even if they are “humane,” they are probably still killing male cows for food. I wouldn’t want to support murder in any way, even indirectly. The other thing is that you would have to every couple of years (at least) impregnate her in order for her to begin lactation; cows are like any other mammals, they do no give milk unless they have young to feed. In the dairy industry, they employ an object called the rape rack which forcibly holds the cow still while they stick their arm all the way inside her to inseminate her. I don’t know how this would be accomplished in a backyard exactly. You’d have to either buy the semen and do it yourself (no thanks) or hire someone to do this part for you. Or I guess you could rent a bull for the old-fashioned way. Again, your source for any of these animals/products/services would probably be a farmer who kills (at least) male cows, which would mean you’d be financially supporting their activities that ultimately lead to suffering and murder. Then what to do with the baby cows after each pregnancy? Especially the males? I guess you could let them go and live free somewhere. I definitely wouldn’t want to sell them back to a farmer – even if the farmer was strictly a dairy farmer. When they can no longer give good milk, dairy cows always end up going to the same slaughterhouse as any other animal raised for meat. The meat and dairy industry are inextricably linked.

All of the aforementioned aside, let’s pretend that this is more of a perfect world, and everyone is at least lacto-ovo vegetarian, with the result that we never had to kill animals for food, I still wouldn’t really care about consuming dairy. Nonvegans think vegans are living a life of lack and would go back to consuming animal products if conditions for animals were perfect with no chance for things to slip back to the way things were. That may be the case for some vegans, but for many, veganism recognizes that animals and their products should never be sold as commodities and that their property status is the root cause of the terrible injustices animals suffer, but that is an entirely different issue, which I will not elaborate on right now. To me, dairy-free food is superior. We’re the only species that continues to drink milk past a young age AND to drink it from another species on a regular basis. As if those common sense points weren’t enough, our body’s biochemistry tells us we don’t need milk much past the age of 3. The genes that code for the enzyme lactase no longer express in most people. The job of lactase is to break down lactose into simpler sugars that we can digest. Many people are lactose intolerant and don’t even know it. Plus, milk is just nasty when you think about it. It’s mammary gland secretions. And there’s pus that comes out with it sometimes. Granted, that’s mostly when the cow is cruelly and relentlessly milked by machines in the industry today, and she develops infections, but as of right now there is a legally allowable amount of pus in all dairy products. This amount is highest in the U.S.

Cow’s milk is a substance that is designed for a baby cow who is to grow at a much faster rate than even human babies. We are not babies. We are adults, and we are still consuming loads of dairy everyday! We don’t need to consume anything that promotes fast growth. We’re done growing. What we can grow, instead of longer limbs like children do, are cancer cells. Cancer is an out of control growing mass of cells that started from normal body cells. Knowing that we consume a product that highly promotes growth even beyond the realm of the growth rate of a human baby and then looking at rates of cancer in the world – you would think we would make the connection by now. Also, the protein in milk is designed for an animal with 4 stomachs. It’s complex and hard to digest. I don’t think our one stomach can do that great of a job with it.  Hmm, I wonder why dairy is associated with indigestion and constipation? Also, casein, one of the proteins in milk, promotes mucus formation in our bodies and is used to make really strong glue. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want something that is an integral part of glue to be coating my nasal passages. If that weren’t enough, we cannot even digest casein. It requires the enzyme rennin (found in calves’ stomachs, not humans’) to break be broken down into its constituent amino acids. And by the way, some cheese cannot even qualify as vegetarian because it is curdled with rennin from a slaughtered calf’s stomach. Of course the calf has rennin in his stomach because cow’s milk is the appropriate drink for a calf, not a human.

Really think about it, does it truly make sense to consume dairy? This image gets me every time -

I’m not going to take the time to go into the health issues associated with dairy because there are volumes written on the topic already. Just know it’s tied to cancer and osteoporosis (no, you don’t need milk for strong bones – that’s propaganda by the animal agriculture industry who puts more money into influencing the government than the entire pharmaceutical industry!) to name a couple. Diet for a New America, Breaking the Food Seduction, and The China Study are all great books that address both the health and the propaganda issues. I highly recommend these life-changing books. Diet for a New America is written by the son of Robbins of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream empire – he declined to take over the multi-million dollar business since the products it served were against his compassionate values and were counters to his desire for great health. The China Study is written by a Ph.D. who used to wholeheartedly support animal agriculture. He is not an animal rights activist, nor a vegan since he occasionally consumes fish, but he otherwise never consumes animal products because of his major research findings. Breaking the Food Seduction is by Neal Barnard, M.D. who grew up in a very conservative, vegan unfriendly North Dakota while consuming all kinds of animal products. He is now a vegan because of compassion and his findings on the addictive and unhealthy nature of animal-based foods.

So it all comes down to taste really. Some people don’t care about any of these issues and would still like to consume dairy. That’s where tons of awesome, nearly-identical-to-the-animal-product-laden-version vegan recipes come into play. The ONLY thing that is not perfected yet is vegan cheese. But it’s a work in progress. Many vegan companies are experimenting with microorganisms and which plant foods have the most similar protein/fat ratio to dairy. Even if someone gets the taste, texture, and melt down exactly, I don’t think it will ever be quite as addictive as the animal product since dairy products naturally contain opiates, including morphine. People are literally addicted to dairy.

There’s so much wrong with dairy, I just wouldn’t want to mess with it again especially when I’ve even conquered the tasty food issue by exceeding my expectations time after time with vegan recipes.

Ok, I lied, it also comes down to convenience in the end, for many people. Dairy is present in so many pre-packaged foods at a typical grocery store. However, things are looking up because non-dairy foods are becoming more and more in demand. So to this I say, if you truly cannot become a vegan with where you are in life right now (laziness and unmotivation don’t count), then please always choose a vegan product when you do have the option. As an example, you could choose soy/rice/hemp/oat/almond/coconut milk instead of dairy milk. Soy, rice, and almond milks are usually easy to find now. One day there will be vegan options everywhere, so please help that day get here faster by voting with your money and showing that you want nondairy alternatives.

This post was just to answer why vegans would not elect to keep and milk a cow even if done as nicely as possible.  I hardly touched on the horrendous things that typical dairy cows face. If you are still consuming dairy from any source, please view this link. It is a site published by an organization based in the UK, but the conditions for cows in the US and other parts of the world are even worse. And if you think organic dairy means happy cows, please view this link. The true answer is just to release animals from our bonds of exploitation for their products and replace our beloved, traditional foods with equally satisfying vegan versions.

Stay tuned for the next FAQ – to be posted when I get around to it :)

My name is Eliana, aka BlueAngel, I’m 23 and I am a new member of the veganise.me community. I stopped eating meat about 4.5 years ago, and I recently made the transition to a vegan diet. I am also experimenting with raw foods. Please have in mind that English is my second language (I’m Colombian) but I think I have fairly good English writing skills ;)

Feedback will be appreciated.

Best,

Eliana

_______________________

I remember the shock in my face when a friend in college told me she didn’t eat meat. “What do you eat then?” I asked. “Salad?”.

Before being vegan, I was one of those college girls trying to lose weight on a high protein diet. I was eating ridiculous quantities of steak and eggs and cheese. Although the weight was coming off, I was feeling heavy and sleepy all the time. I thought it was because I was eating a few carbs again (cereal and fruit) so I cut them out, thinking I would feel fine. But I didn’t. Somehow, my body was telling me “this is not for you”. I wasn’t sure what my body wanted, until the day I saw a vegetarian cookbook at my college’s library.

After reading the chapter called “Why vegetarian?” everything made sense to me. And I decided to give it a try. And I told my parents I had decided to become a vegetarian and that meant no more chicken, fish, or meat (at that point I was still eating eggs, cheese and low fat dairy products).  For the look on their faces, becoming a vegetarian was almost like If I had told them I was pregnant. “What are you gonna eat then?” they asked.  Sound familiar?

For days, my parents would ask me if I wanted chicken with my broccoli, or eggs for breakfast. I saw it wouldn’t be easy to convince them about my decision. And since I am sure there are a lot of people in the same position I was back then, I decided to share some tips that made things easier between me and my family.

1. Do your research on the internet and provide them complete information about the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle.

Parent’s biggest concerns are your health and also the possibility of an eating disorder disguised as a change in your diet (I know this not only for my experience with my parents but also from the vegan people I know who are also my age). So I suggest you do your research, print the information you think it’s important, and share it with your family. Tell them calmly and rationally why you want to go veggie, they might get impressed about the maturity of your approach to your new lifestyle.

2.  Listen to your parents’ concerns.

I learnt that arguing doesn’t really lead anywhere. If they have any questions, make sure you are ready to answer them, that way they won’t worry anymore and they will take your wishes to go veggie seriously.

3. Buy a veggie cookbook.

This is really important. If you don’t know enough about being a veggie, you might get bored of eating tomatoes and lettuce. Being veggie is really exciting. In my opinion, the veggie cuisine is more exciting and creative, so look for a cookbook or search for some recipes online, find one that looks right for you and try it out. You might get surprised with your cooking skills. In my case, I became a foodie and a great cook!!

4. Don’t be afraid to try something new

When I bought my first cookbook, I felt overwhelmed by the amount of information, and all the new ingredients I wasn’t familiar with. Don’t be scared to try out food you’ve never had before. Take a look around the shelves of your local supermarket and health food shop and get to know as many different vegetarian foods as possible, including meat alternatives, cous cous, quinoa, buckwheat and all sorts of fruit and vegetables.

5. Enjoy great vegetarian food with your family

But take it easy, because they might be so open minded at first. What worked for me was this: At first I was in charge of the side dishes for the entire family, and I would cook some extra tofu or tempeh and ask them if they wanted to have some. They were reluctant at first, but I was asking so much that one day my sister decided to have some of my food. She loves it so much, that now Tofu is one of her favorite foods. Once the family is familiar with the veggie cuisine, offer to cook a veggie meal for the entire family (I do that once every week). They will appreciate the gesture and you will spend some quality time together (when I cook, I have one rule: NO T.V that way we can have some family bonding time)

6. Connect with other veggies

It is easier to sustain one’s beliefs and lifestyle when supported by others who share the same convictions. Joining vegan, vegetarian, or animal rights organizations is a great way to meet other veggies.

The Internet is also a great way to connect with others and you could potentially meet others who live fairly close to you. Even if you don’t develop real-time friendships they still can offer advice, information and a a great deal of support and understanding.

It’s your job to help your family to understand your decision to go veggie, and to ease their fears about a vegetarian diet. Once they are ok with it, you are on your way to an exciting new lifestyle. And maybe even your family will find it exciting! (ok, I haven’t convert anyone but they now eat a wide variety of vegetables and fruits!)

Leafy recently posted a debate between animals-as-property abolitionist Gary Francione and libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson. I was appalled at Narveson’s stance that if it is in humans’ interests (even in the trivial interests of entertainment or fashion), it is entirely morally acceptable to torture an animal in any conceivable way. To him, it’s “weird,” but we shouldn’t ever stop anyone from doing it. I presume his reasoning is that he wouldn’t want to interfere with a person’s “freedom” to torture another feeling being.

For context, this was originally posted on a private forum with about twenty (non-veg*n) members.

The longer I remain vegan and think about my motivations for being so, I’ve realized that they stem from larger societal issues. This is the point where this post might start offending people, and I truly do not mean it to. Any examples I provide or situations I describe are not directly pointed at anyone, least of all anyone here. I don’t know anyone here very well (or even decently well), so this is just a statement of how I feel. (More direct disclaimer: Every thing said in this post is directly from my point of view. The topics herein contained are stated as facts. Their factness may remain debatable to some, but from my point of view, they are fact. I believe wholeheartedly that there is no such thing as objective/absolute truth so read what I say with that lens. )

I don’t much like labels, but one of the most fitting labels for me is Libertarian. While I will not completely identify myself with that political party, I agree with basically all of their tenets. To me, it all means one thing – freedom. You should be free to do whatever you want to do, however you want to do it, for as long as you want to do it so long as you don’t infringe on another’s right to do the same. Any restriction on this is an outside party/force trying to control behavior for his/her/its/their own purposes. Manipulation of a population is a heinous crime and is the antithesis of freedom. That being said, if humans are guaranteed this (and I know they aren’t but ultimately, that is what I hope for), why are animals not?

The answer to that question boils down to one simple belief. Humans are superior to animals. If one believes this, I counter with a simple, “why?” If it is because we possess greater mental capacity, I might remind you (generic you, not the reader) that the one (and practically only) advanced ability that humans have over animals is the ability to recognize “complex” patterns. Yet, I find it disheartening that this ability receives very little reward in our society. The people who make the most money are not the ones who have mastered this defining characteristic of our species, but are the ones who have mastered their physical bodies to play games. We are “superior” to animals yet our largest forms of entertainment of at the same level of the entertainment of animals. If we are that similar to animals, then perhaps a higher authority has deemed humans as a “superior” species. Regardless of one’s belief in said higher power, I personally must go back to what I said in the last paragraph – manipulation of a population is a heinous crime and is the antithesis of freedom. If this “higher power” has decreed that we are “superior” that that power is manipulating us by infusing an alien belief structure into us. While it is generally easier to remain ignorant of this lack of self-definition, I do not feel that I can accept that.

So, all of that being said, I feel that animals are neither superior nor inferior to humans. Humans are animals. In that light, the meat industry is akin to slavery in that a group of people are restricting the life of other individuals to make a significant gain from the life of that individual whereas on the other side of the coin, the individual is not allowed to live a natural life. This is a grave injustice. It is sickening to me the more I think about it. I cannot support something which betrays my most base moral code…the prevalence of justice (what can I say, I’m a Libra).

I sincerely hope that this post was not taken as a sermon. I have no right to tell you that what you feel/believe is wrong. In fact, I am a moral relativist, but that does not quell the fire of my own beliefs. There are about a billion other related topics about which I have an unyielding blaze of criticism/commentary, and I hope that I can one day discuss these things rationally with rational people such as are here. I welcome any critiques of my post/thoughts and would love to start a dia/tria/more-alogue about the subjects and any related (or non-related) ones.

Directions:
Cut the corn to remove the kernels. Place them into a food processor and blend until most of the chunks are gone. Add the salt cumin and flax. Mix some more. Spread the mixture onto a teflex sheet or solid plastic sheet for your dehydrator and start it up. After about 20 minutes, sprinkle some salt across the top. Keep dehydrating until nice and crisp, about 24 hours.

Perhaps Rene Descartes was right when he made the compelling argument that animals don’t feel pain. After all, he was right about a lot of other stuff.

Descartes was a vegetarian for health reasons. He, did, however, skin dogs and rabbits alive for research purposes. He reasoned that if the animals felt pain then what was done to them would be so horrific that God would never allow it. Since God did, in fact, allow it, then it follows logically that dogs and rabbits don’t feel pain. There is no reason to think any other animals do, either. As Descartes went on to argue, animals don’t have souls, and without a soul, you can’t feel pain.

At this point you may be thinking, that only makes sense if there really is a God. How do we know God exists? Descartes proved that, too.

It should be noted that there are currents of religious thought which teach that the more intelligent animals do have souls. But even if this is true, just because an animal has a soul, that doesn’t mean it feels pain. It’s more likely that the complex neurochemical pathways which underlie pain perception that we share with nonhuman animals are a coincidence, and that they have an entirely different function in all nonhuman animals, not just the less intelligent ones that have no souls.

But even if animals do feel pain, does it matter? Let’s examine the issue from the perspectives of secular and religious morality.

Why Meat is Moral

Refraining from eating the flesh of animals would be unreasonable because it would be putting animals’ trivial interests in their own lives above our greater interest in eating them. After all, meat tastes really good. It’s such a treasured part of the diet that in some languages, the word for meal is “meat.”

There are some who would claim that if our actions cause the suffering of other sentient beings that is a strong reason not to do it. Libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson has powerfully refuted this claim and points out that the suffering caused to sentient nonhumans by humans is “counterbalanced by the fact that it is very much in our interests to do it.”

In a nutshell, “the question is, is our interest in the taste of animal flesh such as to justify doing the things we do to them to get them into the frying pan? My answer is, yes.” He goes on to explain, “We don’t need to justify our treatment of animals by claiming that they are in some serious sense necessary, like we would die if we didn’t eat animals. That’s not necessary at all. The fact is, if you like meat, then you’re justified in killing animals for the sake of eating meat.”

Even Peter Singer, father of the animal rights movement, acknowledges that animals have no interest in continuing to live. Of course, Singer is a whack job who gives most of his own money away to poor people he’s never met, and he thinks the kind of lives animals have is important. He argues that while animals have no interest in the quantity of their lives, they do have an interest in the quality of their own lives.

That may be true, just as humans have an interest in the quality of their own lives. But that doesn’t mean we should refrain from having children just because our children will suffer during their lifetimes. Life has intrinsic value. Even most humans who are deeply unhappy have the desire to go on living and do not wish they had never been born. Why should animals be any different?

If people stopped eating meat, then fewer animals would be born. As eminent economist Robin Hanson so eloquently stated in his Meat is Moral essay, by eating meat “you are not hurting animals; you are helping them.”

He points out that “we might well agree that wild pigs have lives more worth living, per day at least, just as humans may be happier in the wild instead of fighting traffic to work in a cubical all day. But even these human lives are worth living, and it is my judgment that most farm animal’s lives are worth living too. Most farm animals prefer living to dying; they do not want to commit suicide.”

Hanson explains that the more animals we eat, the more animals will be born to replace them. If we stop eating meat then those animals will never get to have a life at all. Since life on a factory farm is better than no life at all, meat is moral.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that we shouldn’t care at all about improving their lives. It is kind of us to do things that improve the lives of others, whether they be humans or animals, but it is not immoral not to. As Hanson put it, “It would be kind of you to pay a little more for your meat to improve the lives of the animals that become your meat. Just don’t confuse a lack of extra kindness with cruelty; people already do more good by buying ordinary meat than by buying veggies.”

Religious Morality

Perhaps you reject secular ethics. What, then, compels us to support the meat industry on religious grounds? All the holy books in the Western tradition advocate the eating of meat, and God explicitly gave humans dominion over animals. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, Descartes proved that God exists and thereby established that animals don’t feel pain.

The authority of the holy books and the scientific proofs of Descartes will be sufficient for most people. But you may still have nagging doubts, or you may be one of a growing number of people who believes the Vedas offer a much better explanation of how the universe works. Quantum mechanics and superstring theorists are just now starting to discover all the things that were explained thousands of years ago in the Vedic scriptures.

People who follow the Vedas are vegetarians, but they eat a lot of dairy products, especially butter and ghee. One of the important tenets of their religion is nonviolence, so one day I asked them why they supported the dairy industry when the use of animals on dairy farms meets their definition of violence. They explained to me that if butter and ghee are properly blessed, they contain no karmic taint. The prohibition against violence is there only to help people avoid bad karma. But anything desired by Krishna and prepared with the proper rituals can have no negative karma no matter how it is procured.

“Why is that?” I asked. They just laughed at my naivete and told me that was how the universe is structured. Then they told me a charming story about Krishna as a child. Apparently he was very fond of butter and naughtly little Krishna used to sneak into the kitchen through a window to steal butter. One of his common nicknames is “the butter thief.” Apparently He is just as fond of it now.

What does this have to do with the morality of meat? No matter how many hormones you inject into cows and how sophisticated your milking machinery, the truth is that milk cannot be produced without producing lots and lots of calves. And farmers cannot just produce calves that go to waste. They must be able to cut them up and sell them. Farmers are not philanthropists, after all. They have to make a living. Lord Krishna wants butter, and without the meat industry, the dairy industry would dry up, Krishna would become unhappy, the universal dharmic order would be imbalanced and the whole structure of the universe would become deranged .

Now that we’ve established the moral necessity of supporting the meat industry, a few criticisms are in order.

A Few Words on the Inefficiencies of the Leather and Fur Industries

In order to maximize the contributions of the meat industry to human happiness, there are some inefficiencies in the leather and fur industries that should be addressed. Leather and fur are treated as commodities in their own right, and the flesh of the animals stripped of their skin and fur frequently goes to waste. To just throw the corpses into a pile and let them rot after we’ve stripped their skins is unethical. We should make full use of the animals in an attempt to create the maximum amount of human happiness we can from each animal.

Weak Arguments in Support of Eating Meat Should Be Abandoned

In order to be effective in our arguments, we must be careful to weed out any weak arguments, even if they are intuitively appealing. One such argument is that we need to eat meat in order to be healthy. It can be challenging to overcome such deeply ingrained thought patterns. But is has been acknowledged by the USDA and the ADA that a vegan diet can be healthy. We don’t want to use arguments that our opponents can effectively refute. If they defeat us on even a minor point such as this, it will give them some credibility, and they may use that to confuse the uninformed. Unsophisticated thinkers are easily swayed and may not realize that even though it’s healthy to be vegan, it is immoral.

The argument that I find most irksome is the one that it’s natural to eat meat. That just doesn’t hold any water. Murder and rape are also natural. Just because it’s natural does not mean that it is good or moral. After all, chimpanzees eat monkeys. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and we are theirs. But that doesn’t mean we should start eating our fellow primates. That would be ridiculous. It’s a health hazard to eat such closely related animals and it would also be in poor taste. Chimpanzees clearly have a lot to learn about common sense and morality.

We must bear in mind that we are superior as a species because of our ability to rise above our instincts and formulate morally coherent systems of thought. True compassion is knowing your place on the food chain.*

Every year, the number of animals bred for food in the U.S. increases by the hundreds of thousands. Let’s keep up the good work.

* @ngaulin on Twitter

Vitamin B12 is a water soluble vitamin with a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system, and for the formation of blood. It is one of the eight B vitamins. It is normally involved in the metabolism of every cell of the body, especially affecting DNA synthesis and regulation, but also fatty acid synthesis and energy production. –wikipedia

Ok, so that sounds important. Why do vegans need to pay attention to this?

Vitamin B12 is naturally found in meat (especially liver and shellfish), milk and eggs. Animals, in turn, must obtain it directly or indirectly from bacteria, and these bacteria may inhabit a section of the gut which is posterior to the section where B12 is absorbed. Thus, herbivorous animals must either obtain B12 from bacteria in their rumens, or (if fermenting plant material in the hindgut) by reingestion of cecotrope fæces. Eggs are often mentioned as a good B12 source, but they also contain a factor that blocks absorption.^[27] Certain insects such as termites contain B12 produced by their gut bacteria, in a manner analogous to ruminant animals.^[28] An NIH Fact Sheet lists a variety of food sources of vitamin B12.

According to the U.K. Vegan Society, the present consensus is that any B12 present in plant foods is likely to be unavailable to humans and so these foods should not be relied upon as safe sources, as the B12 analogues can compete with B12 and inhibit metabolism. Also, vegan humans who eat only plant based foods must ordinarily take special care to supplement their diets accordingly. The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some soy products and some breakfast cereals), and B12 supplements.^[29]

While lacto-ovo vegetarians usually get enough B12 through consuming dairy products, vitamin B12 may be found to be lacking in those practicing vegan diets who do not use multivitamin supplements or eat B12 fortified foods. Examples of fortified foods often consumed include fortified breakfast cereals, fortified soy-based products, and fortified energy bars. Claimed sources of B12 that have been shown through direct studies^[30] of vegans to be inadequate or unreliable include, laver (a seaweed), barley grass, and human gut bacteria. People on a vegan raw food diet are also susceptible to B12 deficiency if no supplementation is used^[31].

The Vegan Society, the Vegetarian Resource Group, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, among others, recommend that vegans either consistently eat foods fortified with B12 or take a daily or weekly B12 supplement.^[29][43][44] Fortified breakfast cereals are a particularly valuable source of vitamin B12 for vegetarians and vegans. In addition, adults age 51 and older are recommended to consume B12 fortified food or supplements to meet the RDA, because they are a population at an increased risk of deficiency ^[45].

Ok, Now I see that as vegans we need to really monitor the intake of our B12 as it is not really found in our natural diet.  What are some recommendations?

Brewer’s and Nutritional Yeasts

Brewer’s and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 unless they are fortified with it. At least two vegan B12-fortified yeasts are currently on the market: Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula and Twinlab Natural Nutritional Yeast (verified to be fortified with B12 via personal communication with Twinlab June 3, 2003). Unfortunately, there are some drawbacks to relying solely on B12-fortified nutritional yeast for B12:

• Nutritional yeast often comes from bins in health food stores. If not careful, it would be easy for a store employee to order the wrong nutritional yeast out of the distributor catalogs which often list many yeasts. It would also be easy to accidentally put the wrong yeast into the Vegetarian Support Formula bin.
• B12 is light sensitive. Nutritional yeast is likely to be exposed to the light because it is often stored in clear bins or plastic bags.
• At least one vegan who thought he was getting B12 from nutritional yeast developed B12 deficiency symptoms that cleared up upon taking a B12 supplement. — Vegansource

Personally I use nutritional yeast all of the time, but now I will look into vegan b12/bcomplex options.

Friend

Let me start by assuring you that I never come to conclusions on an issue–never toe a moral line–without an almost excessive amount of deliberation, and even then, my mind is never fully made up. That is why I love discourse like this between two people who can civilly debate in the hope that both will come out better than they started.

It is for this reason that I’ve decided against my original idea of posting a contiguous essay (the first draft of which clocked in–unfinished–at over 11 pages), because I do not simply want to be seen as trying to bury the issue in words. I’d much rather argue fairly brief, focused points that I hope will garner response, which, in turn, can be responded to.

I also have to say that, though we disagree, I have incredible respect for your position. It really is nothing short of courageous to be empathetic beyond the realm of your species. I consider myself an extremely open-minded person and have always found it easy to empathize with those of other genders, races, cultures and religions, but the extra-species gap is one I haven’t bridged.

I do want to state that my perspective of our species is not grounded in any sort of us-and-them morality. I very much understand your closing point–that we as humans are animals. But at the same time, we both know that we as humans are far removed from anything else in the animal kingdom. Which is how I’d like to begin.

I. The Division

“Animals are people too!”
–PETA bumper sticker (that spins Wittgenstein in his grave)

All rational people can agree that humans are animals. But does it suffice to say that all that it is to be human is defined by that fact?

I believe we are agreed that it does not. In fact it seems that the crux of the most ambitious argument put forth by those who believe that humans and animals should be equal, actually depends on our differences.

To understand it’s implications, it is important to examine the definition of “equality” in this context, which seems to be: “humans should treat animals the way that humans treat humans, and furthermore, this is necessary because we as humans are ourselves animals,” or, “equal treatment for equal beings.”

To try to reduce this to a simple, logical statement yields something like: “because humans are animals we should treat animals as humans.”

Phrasing it this way perhaps does not make it sound less noble, but it does illustrate the main problem hidden in the simple and optimistic perspective that animals should be regarded as equal to humans: it is inherently illogical.

Now, one could argue that simply because the statement is illogical does not mean it dose not propose a good idea. Conversely, if we only concern ourselves with only making a logical statement, we could conclude: “because humans are animals we should treat humans as animals,” yet one would be hard pressed to say this is a good proposal.

Why is this?

Of course, the reason is because humans have invented a system of ethics that roughly outlines the expected way that humans should treat other humans. This is one of the innumerable assets of humans’ highly evolved cognitive abilities that sets us apart from the rest of the life on earth. To fully illustrate the degree of this separation, of course, would involve discussion of the whole of our culture, civilization, art, language, literacy, invention, and many, many other areas that fall under the far insufficient label of “reason.”

Animals do not reason, and therefore do not have a system of ethics. I do not make this obvious statement as evidence that they should not have rights, but because of the consequences: animals, ungoverned by conscience, are speciesist. Because animals are hardwired by natural design to preserve their own species, those that are carnivorous or omnivorous, in the majority of cases, do not subsist on members of their own species. They mate within their species to propagate it, and eat outside of it (we can surmise) to preserve it. Completely without a highly-cognitive ethics system, lions treat lions the way ethical humans treat humans. Lions do not, under normal circumstances, kill other lions for food, but instead go a step down in the food chain. So really, our fancy ethics are innately serve the same purpose as much simpler instincts that are exemplified all throughout nature.

To argue this simple truth, I expect, would be frustrating to a supporter of equal-rights for animals. After all, lions could not be expected to consider the ethical ramifications involved in killing similar but unrelated species for food, but it could be argued that humans can and should recognize them. To restate this in a more specific way, it could be said that because human beings are highly evolved and have developed an ethics system to preserve our own species, it is our obligation to defy our innate speciesist tendencies and extend our ethics system to include other species. Whether they should or shouldn’t will be debated later, but we’ve arrived at the point I wanted to make: the argument that animals should be treated as equals to humans depends on acknowledging the extreme extent to which this is demonstrably not the case, and is, therefore, self-defeating.

And so, I reject the idea that because humans are animals, it is necessary to treat animals as humans and instead posit: “because humans are animals, humans should treat animals the way animals treat animals: with more regard for the lives of the members of their own species than the lives of other species.”

Now, it may be counter-argued that this rationale declares “reason” to be the defining characteristic of what/whom can be considered a human being, and therefore humans who cannot reason cannot be defined as human. However that is not the case.

Because we, the other members of the species can reason, we can identify a member of our species even if that member cannot identify himself in that way.

Whether this is done empirically (that being was born of two human parents, and is therefore human) or by scientifically interpreting biological data (his DNA is consistent with the characteristics of human DNA) is irrelevant, reasonable members of the species would identify the non-reasoning member as their own.

So really, the claim that animals deserve to be respected as humans, if based on the fact that we are all animals would have to be phrased: “humans are dissimilar with all other animals, and therefore should treat other species in a dissimilar way than other animals treat other animals” (in other words, “don’t act like animals”). However, that just moves the debate to a new point, should the dissimilarity in treatment be that we treat animals like our own species, or to use them to benefit our species in a unique ways?

Me

Well, I don’t have a very detailed counterargument, but I wanted to make sure to respond, since you have put so much thought into this.

First I would like to thank you for respecting my position, and I certainly respect yours since you have so deeply thought about this. I really appreciate that, since so many people won’t even take ten seconds out of their day to think about any issue. You really put forth an interesting argument. I sooo appreciate your use of logic into coming to your opinion instead of just basing it on some blind acceptance of religious principles or adherence to cultural norms like so many people do. Thank you for putting thought into the issue, and I hope you will continue to.

Let’s set aside the whole issue of legal animal rights for all animals everywhere.

The issue to me, moreso, is that we are routinely treating animals in horrific ways. I would like to extend your comparison of the actions of humans and animals. Taking the speciesist lion as an example again, predatory species kill animals only of other species, yes, but they instinctually do so in ways that quickly kill the animal. The way we kill our animals is actually much LESS humane than the way predatory animals do, and much worse, we imprison billions of animals for their whole lives, unlike the predator-prey relationship in the wild where the animals are free to roam for their entire lives. So in that light, humans could be considered as LESS than animal. I know that an animal is not making a moral decision about the way it kills and doesn’t imprision/torture its prey; it’s just its instinct, but I think this is still an interesting comparison.

Reason can be used for great good or great bad, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t use our ethical senses to continue to expand our compassion for any being who can feel and suffer instead of just using it to justify brutal actions. If nothing else, we should at least give protections to those animals that we have domesticated over the ages. These animals often cannot act in a speciesist way because they’ve been assimilated into the human world. We AT LEAST owe some kind of protections to them, since WE made the decision to remove any speciesist leanings these animals have, such as the tendencies to more aggressively defend themselves against us. To tie in what I stated in my other note, we have essentially created innocent, harmless beings who can feel and love just like very young human children and babies, but we give little or no legal protection to these beings. I apologize for using some subjective terms here, but I care less about the logic and more about just trying to inspire compassion in humans for animals. I feel that if reason and logic is one step above our less evolved origins than growing our compassion and following our highest conscience is the next step of evolution for the human race.

I must also point out that what you state about members of a species regarding the lives of their own as more important than those of other species cannot be a hard and fast rule. As a quick example, a family dog will fight off another dog who might be about to attack a member of its human family. In this case, the dog holds the human life higher than one of its own species.
So if this flimsy rule is one’s sole justification for the continued participation in the exploitation of animals in numerous excruciatingly painful ways, maybe it would be time to find a more solid one?

November 6, 2008 -

My friend, whom I have known since I was about 3 or 4 years old, sparked quite a bit of conversation this morning with his status….

Friend

And don’t get me started on how, in California, animal rights apparently outweigh human civil rights.via Twitter

Lindsey

I wouldn’t call what those animals got in return for the passing of that proposition “rights.” Just a BIT less horror and discomfort in their short, tortured lives for the overfed gluttons of this country. Even if you do endorse the exploitation of animals, don’t you believe that they somehow deserve at least a little less inhumane treatment?
Perhaps you aren’t implying you are against what Prop 2 did, but I don’t think you can compare the two propositions – since Prop 2 really didn’t give those animals any rights. They are still innocent, emotional, sentient beings who remain prisoners and cannot live their lives as they will.
But I do think that’s crazy that the human civil right to which you refer got overturned.
I guess as we treat our animals, so we treat our people we feel are sub-humans.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not for more animal rights and less human rights. I am for more human AND animal rights equally.

[personal comments removed]

Friend

[personal comments removed]

Let me first clarify my position and say that I was hopeful that both prop 8 and prop 2 would pass. [I think he actually meant to say he was hopeful Prop 8 WOULDN'T pass, as in he's pro gay marriage.]

It seems, though, regarding the animal rights issue, that we disagree on two fundamental issues. First, what are the rights, exactly, to which animals are entitled, and secondly, is ensuring these rights to animals AS IMPORTANT as ensuring human rights?

To the first question, I will have to assume based on your above comment and what I know of you personally that your position is that animals deserve the same, or nearly the same, rights as humans. Therefore, in regards to the second question, you likely believe it is self-evident that ensuring animals’ rights and human rights are of essentially the same importance–in fact, are nearly the same issue.

I know this is a brief synopsis of a stance on a nuanced issue, but do I understand your opinions and position well enough for the purpose of argument?

Lindsey

You are correct about my position on the issue of animal rights. I believe they deserve nearly the same rights as humans. Of course, I don’t believe they should have the right to vote or the right to own property and silly stuff like that, but I believe they should be treated just like human children should be treated – with respect and love. Children don’t have full rights like adults, but they are granted protection from harm and death by the law. And luckily we do at least have legislation against harming pets, but it is not nearly enough. People who purposefully harm an innocent being, child or non-human animal, need to be punished equally. Pigs have been shown to be as intelligent as 3 year old children and more intelligent than dogs. How can we just say – “because you can’t talk, and because you don’t look like me, I am going to imprison you in the most deplorable conditions and kill you for food”? Who has the authority to place a value on what life is more valuable than another? Animals have feelings and families just like us. The only difference between humans and animals is a rational mind, and some people may say that humans are superior because of that. However, many mentally challenged people do not have the ability to rationalize either, and a lot of people would find it deplorable to say that they are inferior beings because of their mental state.
It is not anti-human to be pro-animal. The more we can increase our consideration we have for animals, think of how MUCH more consideration we will have for humans. Sometimes animal rights activists appear as though they are anti-human, but they feel that animals are SO neglected by society that they have to ignore all else and put their LIFE into doing all they can do to further those rights. To them, we have a worldwide slave trade going on. Animals are legally regarded as property and nothing more so. Pets can be taken away just like children can be taken away for maltreatment, but farm animals have nearly no legal protection. They can be treated like garbage, and half of the baby chicks in the egg industry ARE garbage. They throw them alive into grinders or let them suffocate in the trash. How sad is that? How is that different from doing that to a baby? A human baby is an innocent, harmless being, and so is a baby animal. There is just not time for animal activists to be worried about higher rights – such as civil rights. At least any people lacking higher rights aren’t being exploited and tortured right now. As soon as animals’ basic physical comfort rights are taken care of, we (pro-animal people) can then move more of our efforts toward advancing higher human civil rights.
So you see, both of those types of rights in question right now are nowhere near on the same level. If we ever do get humans and animals to the same level, then so-called animal rights activists will be the first ones to push for human civil rights just as much. By the way, many animal activists are largely in support of human freedoms. (I receive emails on human rights issues, e.g.) They are just so passionate about the animal side and consumed by the urgency of the situation that it appears that they don’t care.
Even if people do admit to animals needing more rights than they have (or don’t have) right now, then there is the whole circle of life argument where people say death is a part of life. That is true, but why should we have the right to decide who lives and who dies – human or animal? Also, I can understand people who say that hunting animals for food is natural, and I agree – that it is when you are living in the wilderness (although, I wouldn’t do it or endorse it), but factory farms (where 99% of animal products are produced in this country) are despicable and anything but natural. PLUS, we have an amazingly abundant, variety-filled food supply which makes it easy to find alternatives to torturing one or more animals just for one’s dinner. I’ve been animal product-free for almost a year now, and I hardly notice the difference between my diet now and before, and it is sad that so many people are under the illusion of needing their meat, dairy, or eggs, and even sadder if they are not under that illusion and need it just because they like the taste.
Anyhow, that was kind of going off on a tangent, but it’s somewhat relevant since food is one of the major reasons for animal exploitation.
So I think you can see that I believe that humans and animal rights are equally important because humans ARE animals – sentient beings with the desire to live…

Edit: So it’s really ironic that I just happened to get a proposed Animal Bill of Rights from the Animal Legal Defense Fund in the mail today.
Here are the rights they are pushing for.

• The right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse
• The right of farmed animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs [although I don't believe that animals should be farmed, but at least this would be a step in the right direction]
• The right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter and adequate medical care.
• The right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and a self-sustaining species population.
• The right of animals to be freed from cruel and unnecessary experimentation and testing.
• The right of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.

Those aren’t too outrageous, right? I think people run at the mention of animal rights because they are very fearful that we are trying to make animals more important than people. No – just trying to give them equal consideration in terms of the right to a free and natural life. Now, show me somewhere that humans are kept in the conditions that animals are kept in, and I will say let’s take care of that and give that just as much importance as changing the conditions for animals. The thing is we have already guaranteed these very basic things to humans, so why shouldn’t we extend it to animals?
ALSO, people run because animal activists have been given a bad name by a just a few crazies that get all the press. Not all of us, in fact, most of us are normal, non-militant people who see an egregious social injustice occurring.

[end Facebook note]

Stay tuned for part 2 of 2 when Friend comes back with an interesting argument.