söndag 11 augusti 2013

Arguments for veganism and counter arguments/excuses


Arguments for veganism:

Links to articles about the unnnecessary-suffering-argument:




Recommended books

Note: You are of course allowed to quote this source of information, but please provide a link to this blog post. This documents needs an update both in structure and design. I will fix this when time allows. Please focus on the content and not the design :) Feel free to provide feedback by writing a comment - both feedback related to improvements, if this document helps you, etc.





Common counter arguments:


  1. But if we don’t kill animals for food, they will become so many, and they will starve./If we stop domesticating and killing animals, no one will feed them and they will starve
  2. if we would all become vegan-animals wouldn’t have a place to stay- since we would transform a lot of land into fields-we all die in the end-suffering
  3. But is it not wrong to sterilize animals
  4. But you are just “emotionalizing” animals
  5. “But Animals were put here for mans use”
  6. Vegan reply to "But it is natural to consume meat and other animal foods" / Vegan reply to 'But I eat meat because we are predators'/it is natural

  7. We are omnivores, and thus we should eat meat/Our brains have evolved to be as sophisticated as they are due to the high levels of protein found in meat./ It is better for our health, because we evolved on it
  8. But ''I was a vegan'/but 'I ate a plantbased diet' in my past.

  9. But vegans eat almonds and bees are exploited to produce this

  10. The Vegan Backlash Pt 3: Misconceptions of Class, Privilege and “Vegan Food” by Michele Kaplan
  11. Vegan reply to: But unless you live in a forest you can't call yourself a vegan
  12. Vegan reply to ex-vegan: "But I need to listen to my body'
  13. But 'The starving people in Africa don't have a choice to go vegan'
  14. Reply to 'Telling others to go vegan is rigid and facist'
  15. Problems with promoting Animal welfare reform to abolish animal use
  16. It is not respectful to use all of the parts of an animal


This is further discussed here: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/why-veganism/#.UfznPm37bBA

How can we be against animal cruelty when we pay others to torture and kill innocent gentle creatures for the sole purpose of pleasing our tastebuds? How can we impose such torture and death on innocent animals just so we can get pleasure out of their corpse for a few moments?
Quote Gary Francione:

First, some of you who object to what I say seem to be offended at my suggestion that there is no morally significant difference between what Kisha Curtis (or the others I mentioned) did and what those who consume animal foods do. These comments express various forms of the view that there is a difference between actually harming a dog (or other animal) and buying animal products for consumption.

You can learn more at: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
It's odd that you bring up our "evolutionary past" - why are you hunting larger mammals, when with that logic you should be consuming mostly vegetarian and insects? http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/

I gathered more scientific references here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html
I highly recommend: www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
Today we have no need for animal foods, neither for survival nor for optimal health.
We humans have the biological capacity to use violence and murder. This doesn’t make it morally justified. We humans have the biological capacity to harm, kill and eat humans for food and we can try to justify it by claiming that we are getting “nutrition”. This doesn’t make it morally justified.
But we are able to. We have the capacity. But again, biological capacity doesn’t constitute as a moral justification. If it did, then it would also be moral to harm, kill and eat humans. Our anatomy is not our ‘God’. To say ‘Eating meat is justified because my God says it is justified’ is analogous to saying ‘Eating meat is justified because my Body says it is justified’.. And then we have the biological capacity of harming, and killing and eating animals. The science is clear that it is detrimental to our health, see e.g. research that I gathered here [1 ]
"
Scholar Christina Warinner at TEDxOU - YouTube
“The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.” — Charles Darwin

--------------------Or if you want to quote a longer version of one of the paragraphs above, you can use this:


We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Thus, if you agree with the proposition that it is immoral to inflict animals any unnecessary suffering and death, please note that based on the above reasoning, you have to stop consuming all animal foods, stop using animals as resources, and go vegan.


Did you know this?:
There is no moral difference between flesh and other animal products such as dairy:

Male calves will not produce milk so they are worthless to the dairy industry so they are removed from their mothers so they do not consume their mother’s milk and slaughtered for their flesh (veal).  The dairy industry is the veal industry.
Female calves are removed from their mothers so they do not consume their mother’s milk and raised to become a cow used for dairy or slaughtered for their flesh.
I highly recommend you to study this book: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

The above research states that there is stress involved when cows that are friends are separated from each other. This research and its references claims that there is stress involved when a cow is separated from her baby also after 1 week: http://stud.epsilon.slu.se/5895/1/heiwe_i_130722.pdf (in Swedish)

“So many non-vegans talk about choice. That there should be a free choice and that this is highly important. But you forget those who do not have a free choice in this: the non-human animals. So if you want for everyone to have a free choice as you seem to the only logical thing to do is to go vegan.”

Quote Rune

"Another aspect of the “pretentious” and “elitist” argument from non-vegans goes something like this: “Some vegans are ‘pretentious’/’elitist’ because they think they are better than people that are not vegan.” This strikes me as odd because people that are in other social justice movements are rarely accused of thinking that they are “better than others” for seeking the rights of the oppressed. You don’t usually hear people say, “Those anti-racism activists just think they are better than racists. Who are they to say?” Vegans simply want non-vegans to begin to think clearly about nonhuman animals. And, yes, we think veganism is the morally right thing to do, just as we also think being an anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-heterosexist is the morally right thing to do. Saying that we seek to be “better” than others has a particular goal in mind - and that is to distract from the issue of one’s animal use."
---
This is extreme:
I have written answers to 25+ other common objections to veganism here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/arguments-for-veganism-and-counter.html
We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
I highly recommend: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

If you believe that God is Love, you can’t believe that God justifies using animals for food and clothing, because you don’t express love by harming and killing another sentient being for frivolous reasons; and we have no nutritional need for animal foods [1]; we have no need to use leather, fur, down or other material for clothing…..

If you believe God cares about animals, you can’t believe that God justifies the animal exploitation and bullying involved in not being vegan, because you don’t wish the individuals you care about to be harmed and to be killed; especially not if it can be avoided and the harming and thus the killing is completely unnecessary and frivolous.
“I will never believe that, if there is a God, that God would ever want us to impose suffering and death on the vulnerable. It is sad that so many religions worship God as nothing more than a cosmic bully.“  Quote: [2]

We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?


Since you can thrive on a vegan diet, the only justification you have for harming and killing, or 
depriving animals of any other of their fundamental interests, is palate pleasure/convenience/tradition, and harming animals for these trivial reasons is unethical.

Questions



Unnecessary suffering - debate starter
Is it morally right to harm and kill animals when there is no need for doing this, when it is completely unnecessary? Is it right to harm and kill them when harming and killing can be avoided -i.e. in a situation in which there is no conflict between human interests and the interests of non-human animals?


Think of this:
Almost all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. Almost all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We condemn Michael Vick for dog fighting precisely because we feel strongly that any pleasure that Vick got from this activity could not possibly justify what he did.


So how can we justify the fact that we kill many billions of land animals and fish every year for food (these animals are killed in the industries that produce meat, milk, eggs and other animal foods)? However “humanely” we treat and kill these animals, the amount of animal suffering we cause is staggering. Yet no one maintains that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. Indeed, mounting empirical evidence points to animal foods being detrimental for human health. But however you evaluate that evidence, there can be no serious doubt that we can have excellent health with a vegan diet (a diet without meat, fish, dairy products, eggs, etc.). There is also broad consensus that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. Animal agriculture is responsible for water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, inefficient use of plant protein and water, and all sorts of other environmental harms.


The best justification we have for the unimaginable amount of suffering and death that we impose on animals is that they taste good. We enjoy the taste of animal foods. But how is this any different from Michal Vick claiming that his dog fighting operation was justifiable because he enjoyed watching dogs fight? Vick liked sitting around a pit watching animals fight. We enjoy sitting around the summer barbecue pit roasting the corpses of animals who have had lives and deaths that are as bad, if not worse than, Vick’s dogs. What is the difference between Michael Vick and those of us who eat animal foods?
Adapted quote from: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


The only diet that doesn’t inflict unnecessary harm and death upon sentient beings is a vegan diet, i.e. a diet without meat, milk, eggs and other animal foods.


Debate starter 2
-Do you believe it is wrong to harm and kill animals without any legitimate reason?
-Is enjoyment, convenience, and tradition or habit good and legitimate reasons to harm animals?
-Is it justifiable to consume animal foods given that we have no nutritional need for this and the animals are harmed in the production of animal foods?


Here follows my view:
Almost all of us oppose dog fights and bullfighting, and we oppose those who defend and participate in these activities because of that they enjoy them. We oppose people mistreating pets and don’t accept the excuse of convenience or lack of time. We understand that convenience isn’t a valid reason for killing an animal, with an interest of not being harmed and an interest of a continued existence.


We oppose these treatments of animals, but not the treatment of the more than 1000 billion of animals who are harmed and killed every year for meat (including fish), milk, eggs and other animal foods. Animals used for eggs and milk are killed at a young age when they are not productive enough for what they are used for.


Is the use of animals for food a good reason to harm and kill animals? Even extremely conservative health organizations, including American Dietic Association, acknowledge that we can live an optimally healthy life on a vegan diet [1]. Thus we have a choice when we are in the food store. We can choose to harm, use and kill animals in order to get nutrition through the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, honey and other animal foods; or we can buy and get our nutrition from vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and other foods from the ground, i.e. a vegan diet.


And the taste of animal foods, or that it is more convenient to consume them, or that they are a natural/traditional part of human history are no legitimate reasons for harming animals; and our trivial reason of palate pleasure/convenience/social acceptance can’t justify us to take from the animals their fundamental and essential interest of continuing to live. Just like that we would never accept these excuses when applied to using animals in dog fights and bullfighting. [2]




Argument for that consuming animal foods is wrong because it inflicts unnecessary harm and death 1
Why would it be moral to consume animal foods despite that there is no need for it??


We all--including nonvegans--agree that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals.


We all--including nonvegans--agree that we can't justify imposing suffering and death on animals for pleasure.


We all--including nonvegans--agree that what Michael Vick did was wrong because he inflicted suffering and death on animals for pleasure.


But the best justification we have for inflicting suffering and death on the animals we eat or use for milk, eggs, etc. is palate pleasure. We don't need to eat animal foods to live healthy lives.


We cannot distinguish morally what we do when we consume animal foods from what Michael Vick did.


Therefore, if we really do take animals seriously as a moral matter, we are committed to not consuming any animal products whatsoever.


This is the idea we explore in "Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals" Quote from: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach


------------------------Another wording:Patricia Soldan Killing an animal in the absence of necessity is the same thing, no matter of the species the animal belongs to.
We do not need animal products in order to lead a healthy life, and that makes 99.99% of animal exploitation unnecessary.
Morally speaking there is no difference in between Vick and any other person that consumes animal products, no matter if they like it or not.
Paying somebody else to do the dirty job or direct participation in killing an animal, are both the same morally speaking.
No wonder the person did not have an answer.


One more:


It doesn't make sense to pet one animal and stick forks and knives into others.


I think if we care about animals, and we are against animal cruelty, we should inform ourselves, and make informed questions. Isn't that common sense? Is it not common sense to question something that you're being told that you may not be in agreement with and make rational conclusions instead of dismissing it with what you think you already know?


If you care, please inform yourself.




We can live without harming others - almost anything you eat now has a vegan alternative.


No need to be upset if you don't agree. A simple post is not a threat, it is a challenge to inform yourself more.
D Liz Palma


One more about unnecessary suffering:If we took it seriously that is wrong to cause animals unnecessary harm, then we couldn’t buy any animal food item from the grocery store, since the production of all of it involves some amount of harm and suffering to various degree; and since we have no nutritional need for animal foods (I gathered scientific references here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html )
Neither could we use animals for food as clothing, food or anything else at all, since perpetuating the notion that animals are resources/property, necessarily will put them in a state where they will be subjected to all kind of unnecessary suffering.
Further reading by Rutgers professor of law Gary Francione:
...
-------------------------------------------
Do you believe it is wrong to harm and kill animals without any legitimate reason?
Can pleasure, convenience, habit or tradition serve as legitimate reasons?


You will have a hard time finding any person who doesn’t agree with this statement. Are enjoyment, convenience, and tradition or habit good and legitimate reasons to harm animals? We oppose dog fights and bullfighting, and we oppose those who defend and participate in these activities because of that they enjoy them. We oppose people mistreating pets and don’t accept the excuse of convenience or lack of time. We understand that convenience isn’t a valid reason for killing an animal, with an interest of not being harmed and an interest of a continued existence.


We oppose these treatments of animals, but not the treatment of the more than 1000 billion of animals who are harmed and killed every year for meat (including fish), milk, eggs and other animal foods. Animals used for eggs and milk are killed at a young age when they are not productive enough for what they are used for.



Is the use of animals for food a good reason to harm and kill animals? Even extremely conservative health organizations, including American Dietic Association, acknowledge that we can live an optimally healthy life on a vegan diet [1]. Thus we have a choice when we are in the food store. We can choose to harm, use and kill animals in order to get nutrition through the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, honey and other animal foods; or we can buy and get our nutrition from vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and other foods from the ground, i.e. a vegan diet.



And the taste of animal foods, or that it is more convenient to consume them, or that they are a natural/traditional part of human history are no legitimate reasons for harming animals; and our trivial reason of palate pleasure/convenience/social acceptance can’t justify us to take from the animals their fundamental and essential interest of continuing to live. Just like that we would never accept these excuses when applied to using animals in dog fights and bullfighting. Gary Francione and Anne Charleton give, in their book Eat like you Care, rational answers to 30 common excuses that we often use to defend our inconsistency and moral schizophrenia in our relation to the animals.



I decided to live according to my values and to stop being an active part of inflicting unnecessary harm and death on animals, one year ago; I stopped consuming and using animals and their products and became a vegan. And I recommend everyone to do the same choice – to eat and live according to your values, eat and live as animals matter morally, and eat and live without oppressing and being violent towards defenseless and vulnerable sentient beings.



Please share! Sharing is caring.



Footnotes:





Difference between Michael Vick and dog fighters:
There is, of course, a psychological difference. The person who enjoys killing animals or watching them kill each other, or who directly participates in the killing, may be a more brutal person than the one who pays another to do the killing. So there may be a psychological difference between the person who pays another to kill and the person who actually kills, but as far as moral culpability is concerned, there is no difference. In both cases, animals have suffered and died for reasons of pleasure (whether palate pleasure or otherwise), amusement, or convenience.  
Would your assessment of Michael Vick be any different if he financed the dog fighting operation but never attended it personally? It makes Vick a more brutal person that he actually enjoyed watching dog fighting and apparently participated directly in killing dogs, but that is a psychological matter and has no bearing on the matter of moral culpability. There is no difference between person X, who kills the dog, and person Y, who says to X, "kill the dog but wait until I leave because I am squeamish."
Many animal lovers who are not vegans do not hesitate to criticize those who hunt. Although there is a psychological difference between the hunter and the person who goes to the store and purchases meat or other animal products, there is no moral difference. Indeed, the animal whose corpse is purchased at the supermarket probably had an overall worse life and death than did the hunted animal. But in both cases, suffering and death occurred for no morally acceptable reason.


We are all Michael Vick
Michael Vick violated a fundamental moral rule most of us accept: It’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on an animal. Pleasure and amusement do not count as good reasons.
The problem is that from this standpoint, we are all Vick. Humans kill and eat more than 56 billion animals a year worldwide, not counting fish.
No one maintains that it is medically necessary to eat animal foods. The best justification that we have for the suffering that we impose on the animals we use as food is that they taste good. We find eating animal foods to be convenient. None of that remotely resembles moral necessity.
GARY L. FRANCIONE




Unnecessary suffering and property status
Do you believe that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals? If you want to act according to this principle you have a moral obligation to go vegan. You don’t believe me? I will show you why.


Even if you don't believe that animals value their lives and their subjective experiences and that they only care about not being harmed and don't care about a continued existence/living the next day- which I would say is contrary to all the evidence that we have - you can still not justify any kind of domestication / treating animals as resources/property if you take it seriously not to harm animals when there is no compulsion for this . If you take this moral principle, you can't justify any kind of consumption of animal foods when there is no compulsion, when there is no necessity.


There is no compulsion of consuming animal foods, since we can live a life of optimal health on a vegan diet: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/varfor-vegan-for-att-det-ar-omoraliskt.html


All production of animal foods involves some suffering in various form and of various intensity - e.g. suffering in the transport and/or killing process of a slaughter house/or any other killing, fishing or other hunting, stress and harm of the forceful separation of babies and mothers that occurs for dairy, or the separation that occurs when some animals are sent to the slaughter house, etc..


Justifying having animals as property, e.g. farmed animals or any other domesticated animals, will necessarily result in completely unnecessary suffering and death in many various forms and of different intensity - related to the confusion of our society due to the status of animals as property.:


Here follows a quote demonstrating this: "When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer from “moral schizhophrenia”. We claim to recognize that animals have morally significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it benefits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we must recognize that animals have one right–the right not to be treated as property, and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more than things that possess no morally significant interests. The theory presented applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any
additional cognitive characteristics."





Even if you don't believe that animals value their lives and their subjective experiences and that they only care about not being harmed and don't care about a continued existence/living the next day- which I would say is contrary to all the evidence that we have - you could still not justify any kind of domestication/treating animals as resources/property. You couldn't justify any kind of consumption of animal foods when there is no compulsion if you believe in t and friends being separated from each other, which is caused by e.g.the forceful separation of babies and mothers that occurs for dairy, or separation when some animals are sent to the slaughter house, etc..


Justifying having animals as property, farmed animals or domesticated pets, will necessarily result in completely unnecessary suffering and death in many various forms and of different intensity - related to the confusion due to the status of animals as property:
"When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer
from “moral schizhe principle that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering. There is no compulsion to consume animal foods, since we can live a life of optimal health on a vegan diet: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/varfor-vegan-for-att-det-ar-omoraliskt.html


All production of animal foods involves some suffering in various form and of various intensity - e.g. killing process of a slaughter house, fishing or other hunting, stress and pain of mothers, babiesophrenia.” We claim to recognize that animals have morally
significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnec-
essary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these
moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that
we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral
schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as
a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it ben-
efits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously,
we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we
must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose
human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we
must recognize that animals have one right–the right not to be treated as property,
and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in
ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human
property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it
could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more
than things that possess no morally significant interests. The theory presented
applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any
additional cognitive characteristics."


More to read here: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
It is moral to eat meat because that we are at the top of the food chain??:


What food chain? This “But” is another way of asking whether our power and ability to exploit animals makes it morally right to do so. We would immediately see the problem if this “But” were raised in a context involving humans. For example, it was once argued that white western Europeans were naturally superior to Africans because the former were able to enslave the latter. There is no such thing out there as a “food chain.” It’s a concept that we have devised so that we can make our exploitation of animals look as though it has some basis in the natural world . It doesn’t. The proclamation that we are at the top of the food chain is equivalent to a proclamation that we are capable of oppressing and exploiting all of the other species on the planet. That may be true but it carries no moral significance. Are humans different from nonhumans? Certainly. Do humans have abilities that nonhumans lack? Certainly. But animals have all sorts of abilities that humans don’t have. Yes , humans can write symphonies (although most don’t by the way). But birds can fly without being in an airplane and fish can breathe under water without an air tank. What, apart from our self-interested proclamation, makes animal abilities worth less as a moral matter than human abilities?


The answer: nothing. But at the outset, we promised you that we were not going to challenge that bit of conventional wisdom that holds that although animals matter morally , they don’t matter morally as much as humans do. Our conventional wisdom holds that even if animals matter less, they matter some, and hurting or killing them requires a justification. Responding to the need for such a justification by saying that we are at the top of some non-existent chain is a way of saying that it’s okay to hurt and kill animals without any moral justification. And that’s just a way of saying that you don’t think that animals matter at all morally and that we can make them suffer and kill them just because we are able to do so. Actually, if you stop and think about it for a minute, you’ll see that our power and ability to exploit nonhuman animals gives us the responsibility to protect them from exploitation!


Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1249-1253). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.
www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?


This “But” is like saying that God wants us to eat animals but we don’t need to bother with God.  Something else that is big and important—nature— wants us to eat animals. If we don’t eat animals,we are acting against nature. We are behaving in
an unnatural way. That’s powerful stuff—even if you’re an atheist. In fact, “But Natural” is like “But God” without God. It seeks to establish necessity, but without God.


Another response:
Every form of discrimination in the history of humankind has been defended as “traditional.” Sexism is routinely justified on the ground that it is traditional for women to be subservient to men: “A woman’s place is in the home.” Human slavery has been a tradition in most cultures at some times. The fact that some behavior can be described as traditional has nothing to do with whether the behavior is or is not morally acceptable.


In addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the morality of the practice. In the first place, just about every form of discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural superiority of men over women. Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as natural. Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that: labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.
Quote: www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/






But plants have feelings too. It is as wrong to eat plants as it is to eat meat.


Shorter answer:
“If plants are not sentient, they cannot have interests. End of story. We agree that plants are not sentient. So we cannot adversely affect them because they have no preferences, desires, or wants. They are not sentient. “ Quote Gary Francione


Another short answer:
The criteria is 'sentience'.
People recognize that animal abuse is morally wrong because that animals are sentient, and have an interest of not suffering, and because animal is completely unnecessary, and that pleasure/convenience is no moral justification for harming an animal.


People do not recognize that uprooting a potato is morally wrong because that the potato is not sentient and can't suffer.


Here are some articles expounding on this:


Another answer:
Is it morally wrong to waste a fine working car? Are you doing anything morally wrong towards the car? No.
It may be wrong to waste the car, but you are not harming the car, since the car is a thing.
Plants are things just like cars. They don't have any subjective interests.


People recognize that animal abuse is morally wrong because that animals are sentient, and have an interest of not suffering, and because animal is completely unnecessary, and that pleasure/convenience is no moral justification for harming an animal.


People do not recognize that uprooting a potato is morally wrong because that the potato is not sentient and can't suffer.


Here are some articles expounding on this:


Longer answer:
I don't believe you think cutting the grass is comparable to stabbing a dog. We recognize that stabbing a dog is immoral because that it causes unnecessary suffering and death upon a sentient being, which is also why we should be morally opposed to the industrialized animal abuse in the meat-, milk and egg industry, hunting, and any other unnecessary killing.


It is well-known scientifically that animals are conscious and feel pain, and that plants are not conscious and don’t feel pain.
“Plants exhibit elements of anoetic consciousness which doesn’t include, in my understanding, the ability to think.  Just as a plant can’t suffer subjective pain in the absence of a brain, I also don’t think that it thinks.”


It shows that plants are not sentient and they don't feel pain and suffering.
If you still think that plants are sentient, just like we are and all the other animals are, then avoid killing them. You don't need to. See the paragraph further down.


If you still believe that plants are sentient and do feel pain, and you think it is morally wrong to kill plants, and always try to stop someone that is cutting the grass, just like you would try to stop someone you saw was abusing a dog:
If you kill and eat cows - then you kill an innocent and sentient cow; and in total you consume more than 10 times the amount of plants (the food of the cow) compared to the amount of plants you would have had to consume if you ate a vegan diet. And if everyone consumed plant foods only, we would eliminate starvation and poverty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas
Here there are some references to research from e.g. Cornell University comparing how much plant protein that are consumed when comparing an animal foods-diet compared to a vegan diet: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/vegan-reply-to-if-you-reduce-meat.html and http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/veganstrict-vegetarian-reply-to-does.html



You can just eat the seeds of the plants and not kill the plants, if you believe that plants are sentient: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/05/the-connection-of-eating-meat-and.html



"Poor countries sell their grain to the West while their own children starve in their arms. And we feed it to livestock. So we can eat a steak? Am I the only one who sees this as a crime? Every morsel of meat we eat is slapping the tear-stained face of a starving child. When I look into her eyes, should I be silent?
The earth can produce enough for everyone’s need. But not enough for everyone’s greed."



We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.
So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.






I consume meat for survival
You don’t need animal foods for survival:
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)


Please consider this: We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.


So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.


If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.Uf1Zx237bBA


Vegans are hypocritical because they are using computers and animals were exploited in the production of computers
People are against exploitation of humans and in their daily interaction they use products whose production involves exploitation of humans. Just because that it is impossible in the society we live in to avoid using products which were produced through the exploitation of humans, doesn't make it morally justified to intentionally exploit humans. Just because that we can't avoid using products that involved the exploitation of animals, doesn't make it morally justified to inflict unnecessary harm and death on sentient animals. Usage of computers in our society is unavoidable, e.g. for paying bills and for the advocacy of ending the exploitation of both human and nonhuman animals, usage of animals for food is completely frivolous.
We should minimize all consumption of resources, including food, since it all involves unintentional harm of sentient beings.


Basically, we should never intentionally harm any sentient being (human and non-human). To live in this world without causing any sentient being unintentional harm is completely unavoidable, but we should minimize our consumption of food/clothes/things (and consume vegan food, use vegan clothes -- so that we don't participate in the intentional harming of any sentient being), etcetera, so that we cause as little harm as possible.


To repeat:
We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?


Pleasure. Convenience.


So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.


If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.Uf1Zx237bBA



“Dont eat meat and the animals still get butchered...meat doesnt get eaten...animals die in vain”
First of all you have the 58 billion of domesticated animals that are bred and killed only because of human demand and consumption. Then you have the more than 1000 billion marine animals that are killed and consumed only because of human demand and consumption, and these animals wouldn’t be hurt and killed. If the demand stopped these fish wouldn’t be killed.


A vegan diet is very inexpensive. Eat a home-cooked starchbased diet (e.g. potatoes, rice, lentils, beans,etc.) with some vegetables and fruits: http://www.drmcdougall.com/


I also recommend this book which adresses many more counter-arguments: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


Veganism is our moral obligation because that it is wrong to harm and kill animals when there is no need to do this. I recommend you to study this: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/why-veganism/#.Uf1eIm37bBA
“There is nothing immoral about eating meat. The way the animals are raised and treated is immoral. Plain and simple.”


One answer:
One question.
You say that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals.
Yet, you partake of foods from farmed animals, meat, milk and eggs, and all of this involves suffering to some extent. Same with the killing of marine animals and other wild animals - it involves suffering.


How can you justify this morally when all this suffering is completely unnecessary, since we can live and thrive on a vegan diet (as I have demonstrated before with scientific references).


Please consider this:
"First, like the previous “But” concerning “humane” treatment laws, this “But” misses the point. Even if the reforms proposed by animal advocates would significantly improve animal welfare, which, as we explain below, is not the case, what that would mean is that animal suffering would be reduced. But as the use of animals for food is not necessary at all, it would still not make our consumption of animal foods consistent with the moral principle that we claim to accept: that imposing any suffering and death on animals requires some necessity; some compulsion.
If we reformed dog fighting to be less violent, there may be a reduction of the suffering of the dogs but no one who thinks that what Michael Vick did was wrong would change her mind and support dog fighting. Dog fighting is wrong because, as a practice, it results in unnecessary suffering and death. Consuming animal foods is wrong because, as a practice, it results in unnecessary suffering and death. Making either practice more “humane” does not result in either practice conforming to our moral intuitions on the need to justify animal suffering. The fact that animal advocates are joining with industry to support and praise “happy” meat, eggs, and dairy does not mean that the consumption of those products is morally acceptable any more than a religious person declaring the perpetration of an act of violence to be the will of God makes it morally right to kill."



Another answer
Animals are harmed by getting killed even if they are killed painlessly (which never happens in the food industry): http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html. They have an interest of living their lives and don't want to be killed by humans for food.


Please consider this:
1. It is wrong to inflict suffering and death on sentient beings (human or nonhuman) without any necessity.


2. Whatever necessity includes, it must, if it is to be meaningful, exclude the imposition of suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.


3. Apart from life boat/desert island scenarios, there is no need to eat animal foods to be healthy.


4. Therefore, eating animal foods outside of extreme situations serves only pleasure, amusement, or convenience.


5. Therefore, it is morally wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals for food.


Quotes and subsequent discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/630709030282188
“Animals eat other animals. Thus there is nothing wrong to eat meat”


Shorter answer:"Whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat and other animal foods, and more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both benefit from a shift away from a diet of animal products." From: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


You can justify lots of immoral behaviours by referring to the behaviours of some animals.


Please study this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ye6bt0omfXkwMx_Iy5gVxziYi2YJ5It4tfUC0YtQ8tU/edit#





Longer answer: Our conventional wisdom says that although animals matter morally, and we need to be able to justifyimposing suffering and death on them, humans matter more because of characteristics like their ability to engage in moral reasoning and, in a situation of genuine conflict, animals lose and humans win. And when we are confronted with the fact that our eating animals can’t be justified because there is no conflict and we eat animals and animal products simply because we enjoy the taste, we say: “but wait—animals eat each other so why can’t we eat them?” Some animals do, indeed, eat other animals.
That’s certainly true. But what relevance does that have to the issue of whether we should consume animal products?


That’s a rhetorical question; the answer is clear: it has no relevance. First, although some animals eat each other in the wild, many do not. Many animals are vegans.
Moreover, there is far more cooperation in nature than what we imagine as the “cruelty of nature.”


Second, whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat and other animal foods, and more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both benefit from a shift away from a diet of animal products.


Third, animals do all sorts of things that humans do not regard as morally appropriate. For example, dogs copulate and defecate in the street. Does that mean that we should follow their example or that humans are justified in engaging in the same behaviors? It is interesting that when it is convenient for us, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal,
as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.


In any event, this argument suffers from the problem that any argument encounters that is of the form, “Doing activity X is morally wrong. But person P is doing X. Therefore it is alright to do X.” You can substitute anything for X. Beating up your mother is morally wrong. But wait, John beats up his mother regularly. Therefore, beating up your mother is morally alright.”
See the problem?


Quote from
I like to be vegan, I just don’t know hot to cook tasty food.


There are some recipes at e.g. www.vegankit.com and som here: http://veganviking.blogspot.com/ (my wife's recipe site); and here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3303868556981.160397.1276017580&type=3 ; http://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletter/recipeindex.html ; and one can find hundreds of other vegan recipe websites on the internet.


A starch-based diet with fruits and vegetables is cheaper compared to a diet of animal foods.


A vegan diet is too expensive
A starch-based diet with fruits and vegetables is cheaper compared to a diet of animal foods. You can eat a cheap, health, nutritious starch-based diet (potaoes, rice, lentils, beans, sweet potatoes, etc.) with the addition of fruits and vegetables: http://www.drmcdougall.com/


There are some recipes at e.g. www.vegankit.com and som here: http://veganviking.blogspot.com/ (my wife's recipe site); and here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.3303868556981.160397.1276017580&type=3 ; http://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletter/recipeindex.html ; and one can find hundreds of other vegan recipe websites on the internet.
All of the above recipes does not include the cheapest ingredients, but it is possible to also find many cheap vegan recipes on the internet.


I recommend you to study: www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/



Some other thoughts:Sarah K. Woodcock I am not trying to be mean, but whenever I see anyone say, "It is hard to be vegan" or "It is expensive to be vegan" (both of which are factually untrue), I feel these ways of thinking are deeply speciesist. Oh, it is hard for me as a human to not exploit you -- woe is me. Oh, it is expensive for me as a human to not exploit you -- woe is me. Wrong and wrong. It is hard for *nonhumans* for us not to be vegan. It is expensive for *nonhumans* for us not to be vegan; it literally costs them their freedom, their dignity, and their lives! It is hard and expensive for them, not us.


Why is it immoral when our evolutionary ancestors ate meat to survive?
We are omnivores, and thus we should eat meat


Answer 1:


Just because we have evolved to be able to handle certain foods if needed, or that some humans needed animal foods for survival in the past, it doesn't give us a justification for when we don't need to. We have fists, but that doesn't mean we can use them whenever we want and on whomever we want. We evolved to be able to have sex with one another, but that doesn't give us a justification to do it whenever we want and with whomever we want.


Nature nor evolution give a justification for doing anything. Our past would reveal a long duration of rape, stealing, and murder - does that give us justification now?


Today we have no need for animal foods, neither for survival nor for optimal health.
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)




So there is no justification to inflict pain and suffering on sentient beings, and taste of animal foods/convenience is no valid justification. We don't need any of that just like we don't need to use animals for any reason.


More about what our ancestors ate: http://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/videos/advanced-study-weekend-experts/nathaniel-dominy-phd-starchy-plants-and-early-human-ancestors-diet-in-the-evolution-of-the-pygmy-body-size/




Quote: John Tallent


Answer 2:
Some of our ancestors did eat meat in order to survive. Why do you compare a situation of survival ith the situation today where we need no animal foods for optimal health???? The situations are not comparable.

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)
I gathered more scientific references here showing a vegan diet to be healthy, and that animal foods causes health problems: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html ;


Maybe you say: ‘We are omnivores, and thus we should eat meat’. An omnivore does not get health problems from consuming animal foods. Humans do.
Please study the research behind this movie: www.adelicatebalance.com.au/


And even if we could consume animal foods without getting health problems, so what???
We can live and thrive on a vegan diet, so killing and harming animals for food in our society is completely unnecessary. The only "justification" is that it tastes good/convenience -- and pleasure is no moral justification for hurting and killing an animal. I recommend you to study this article : http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


More answers to common Counter-arguments you will find here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UfTXK237aQI




Answer 3:
"Natural""??


Some try to justify things because "God says". Some try to justify things because "Nature says"/”Our bodies says’. But if something is moral because it occurs in nature, or because we have the biological capacity to do a certain thing, then rape and cannibalism is also moral.





We can live and thrive on a vegan diet, so killing and harming animals for food in our society is completely unnecessary. The only "justification" is that it tastes good/convenience -- and pleasure is no moral justification for hurting and killing an animal. I recommend you to study this article : http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/





Answer 4:
You cannot draw anything normative from that. That is, to say that can consume X does not mean we ought to consume X or that it is morally acceptable to consume X.


Moe ff
Counter-claim about veganism: http://www.ecologos.org/mcardle.htm




We have evolved consuming animal foods
And recent scientific discoveries contradicts the claim that we evolved because of eating meat. See the research referred to here: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/oct/fav5.htm


But even if it was true that we evolved because of consuming meat, so what? Consuming animal foods today is completely unnecessary. That we might have evolved eating animal foods, doesn't serve as a moral justification to harm and kill animals today for palate pleasure/convenience, regardless whether a person thinks that our ancestors had a need to consume meat.


We can live and thrive on a vegan diet, so killing and harming animals for food in our society is completely unnecessary.


It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may “provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)
And animal foods is not good for our health, nor brain. More about health: Please study the research behind this movie: www.adelicatebalance.com.au/
Some of it:
http://www.thechinastudy.com/the-china-study/about/


The only "justification" is that it tastes good/convenience -- and pleasure is no moral justification for hurting and killing an animal. I recommend you to study this article :


http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights


It is better for our health, because we evolved on it
Just because some of our ancestors ate some of their calories from meat doesn't mean that it was optimal for their health, nor that it caused their evolution.


In either case - we don't need it today for optimal health. I have provided many scientific references earlier in this thread.


Please also consider this:
"Myth 1
Humans have evolved to eat meat and paleo-people consumed a lot of meat.


Quite the opposite is true.
Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption.
We have many adaptations to plant consumption.
Vitamin C is found in plants. We can’t make it ourselves such as carnivores.


Or digestive tract is longer than carnivores, so that our food can stay in the body longer so we can digest plant matter. We need more surface area and we need more microbes.


... We have bit molars there to shred fibers, plant tissue. We don’t have carnassials, the specialized teeth that carnivores have to shred meat. We do actually have some genetic mutations in some populations that are adapted to animal consumption, to milk not to meat. These arose in certain agricultural communities, primarily in Europe and Africa.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8


More about what our ancestors ate
Anyways, what science thought about our ancestors is constantly changing. Previous scholarship has made many assumptions of what our ancestors ate.


"Neanderthals disappeared sometime between 30,000 and 24,000 years ago. Until recently, Neanderthals were understood to have been predominantly meat-eaters; however, a growing body of evidence suggests their diet also included plants. We present the results of a study, in which sequential thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (TD-GC-MS) and pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) were combined with morphological analysis of plant microfossils, to identify material entrapped in dental calculus from five Neanderthal individuals from the north Spanish site of El Sidrón. Our results provide the first molecular evidence for inhalation of wood-fire smoke and bitumen or oil shale and ingestion of a range of cooked plant foods. We also offer the first evidence for the use of medicinal plants by a Neanderthal individual. The varied use of plants that we have identified suggests that the Neanderthal occupants of El Sidrón had a sophisticated knowledge of their natural surroundings which included the ability to select and use certain plants."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-012-0942-0


In either case you have failed to show why it is relevant what our ancestors ate.


Another answer:
As been said above, what our ancestors ate is irrelevant, since we can live a life of optimal health on vegan diet.


Having said this, the claim that our brain evolved because of meat consumption is disputed by research:


More about what our ancestors ate: http://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/videos/advanced-study-weekend-experts/nathaniel-dominy-phd-starchy-plants-and-early-human-ancestors-diet-in-the-evolution-of-the-pygmy-body-size/


" Based on our anatomy and physiology experts have long concluded that primates, including humans, are designed to eat a diet consisting mostly of plant foods. The natural diet of chimpanzees, our closest relative, is nearly pure vegetarian in composition; made up largely of fruits; and in the dry seasons when fruit is scarce, they eat tree seeds, flowers, soft pith, and bark; with termites and small mammals making an insignificant contribution to their nutrition all year long.


Recently, scientists have proven through genetic testing that we are designed to thrive best on one category of plant food known as starch. Human and chimp DNA is roughly 99% identical, but that 1% difference, which includes genes to digest much more starch, proved crucial for the evolution of humanity's earliest ancestors. Examination of the number of copies of the gene for the synthesis of the starch-digesting enzyme, amylase, has found an average of 6 copies in humans, compared to only 2 copies of this gene in other primates.2 This genetic difference results in the production of 6 to 8 times higher levels of starch-digesting enzymes in human saliva. The limited ability of chimpanzees and others in the great ape family to utilize starch tied their species to the tropical jungles where fruits are abundant all year long.


Starches were a critical food source for the ancestors of early and modern humans. The ability to efficiently utilize starch provided the opportunity for us to migrate out of Africa—to colonize the rest of the planet (to locations where fruits are plentiful only in summer and fall).  Starch-filled tubers and grains act as storage units for concentrated calories that last throughout the winter, are widely distributed geographically, and are easy to gather. Their abundant calories also supplied the extra energy necessary for the brain to evolve from monkey-size to human-size (a three times difference).3"



3) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/science/10starch.html?ref=science
Quote from: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/feb/starch.htm


It is not the killing of an animal for foods that is the problem, it is the inhumane treatment


Letizia,
You can kill a human painlessly, but still you will harm the human, because the human has an interest of living. The same is true with nonhuman animals:


Sentient beings, by virtue of their being sentient, have an interest in remaining alive; that is, they prefer, want, or desire to remain alive. To say that a sentient being is not harmed by death denies that the being has the very interest that sentience serves to perpetuate. It would be analogous to saying that a being with eyes does not have an interest in continuing to see or is not harmed by being made blind. The Jains of India expressed it well long ago: “All beings are fond of life, like pleasure, hate pain, shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life is dear.” [30] The notion that animals are not self-aware is based on nothing more than a stipulation that the only way to be self-aware is to have the self-awareness of a normal adult human. That is certainly one way to be self-aware. It’s not the only way. As biologist Donald Griffin, one of the most important cognitive ethologists of the twentieth century, noted in his book, Animal Minds, if animals are conscious of anything, “the animal’s own body and its own actions must fall within the scope of its perceptual consciousness.”
Quote from: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/ ; Longer quote here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html


Thus, the problem isn’t only the “treatment”, the moral problem also includes the unnecessary killing of an animal for food. Gary Francione clearly shows in his articles and books that there is a moral problem with ALL animal use: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
Since you can thrive on a vegan diet, the only justification you have for harming and killing, or depriving animals of any other of their fundamental interests, is palate pleasure/convenience/tradition, and harming animals for these trivial reasons is unethical.


In order to farm and/or kill an animal, one has to disregard the following interests of the animals:
1. The animals interest in not suffering. There will always be some amount of suffering involved.
2. The animals friends and families interest in not losing their friend or family member.  And the emotional suffering involved in this process.


3. The animals- collective interest in not being property under law, which unavoidably will lead to and enable animals to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, and get many of their other interest disregarded even when there is no true conflict between a human and an animal. More to read here: http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/


If animals have a moral value, which we admit if we claim it is morally wrong to abuse an animal, we can exploit an animal and disregard her interests when we have absolutely no need to do this, when there is no compulsion whatsoever for us to harm and kill her.




We have no need for doing this:
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association



Another shorter answer.--may be supplemented by some of the text above:
"Sentience is not a characteristic that has evolved to serve as an end in itself. Rather, it is a trait that allows beings to identify situations that are harmful and that threaten survival. Sentience is a means to the end of continued existence. "


If you try to kill any animal in the wild without using any guns, you will see that the animal tries to fight for his/her survival.


I think it is clear that an animal has an interest in not being killed by us or any other species; and thus if we regard them to have a moral value we are obligated to respect also this interest.


More food for thought?


You are claiming that it is okay to kill nonhuman animals for food, but not human animals?
Do you think there is any difference in the harm that you cause a human animal when killing her compared to a nonhuman animal?




Pleasure. Convenience.
So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
I recommend you to study http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


What about consuming eggs from rescued hens?
By consuming animal foods and owning animals one is perpetuating the property status of animals, which enables all the animal abuse today of the domesticated animals. As long as any individual, humans or nonhumans, is property under the law there will be no real protection.


“Anticruelty laws assume that animals are the property of humans, and it is in this context that the supposed balance of human and animal interests occurs. But as we saw, we cannot really balance the interests of property owners against their property because property cannot have interests that are protectable against the property owner. The humane treatment principle, as applied through animal welfare laws, does nothing more than require that the owners of animal property accord that level of care, and no more, that is necessary to the particular purpose.” Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.Uf4r9G37bBA


“Although these activities do not contribute directly to demand for animal products, they are deeply problematic as a symbolic matter. They reinforce the idea that animal products are things to consume; they reinforce the idea that animals are things, are human resources; they reinforce the social practice of consuming animals; they reinforce demand even if they don’t contribute directly to it.”
I also recommend this article:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets/#.Uf4-GG37bBA
You can learn more about this principle in this article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights



But you can’t live and be healthy on a vegan diet
Just as an additional statement of the facts. Aside from 'exercise is generally better than not exercising' there are not that many things that enjoy more widespread consensus in public health than the suitability of a plant-only diet.


In addition to the American Dietetic organization, "private and public sector health organizations across a continuum of care agree that a well planned, plant-only diet can be healthy. Organizations that have made public statements of the healthiness of a plant-only diet include dietetic associations, governmental bodies and private clinics.


The American Dietetic Association (1), Dietitians of Canada (2), the British National Health Service (3), the British Nutrition Foundation (4), the Dietitians Association of Australia (5), the United States Department of Agriculture (6), the National Institutes of Health (7), the Mayo Clinic (8), the Heart and Stroke Foundation (9), among others, all provide information on healthy living as well as nutritional suggestions for plant-based diets."







Things to write to persons that consume eggs and milk [Comment to point #2: In

Female cows used for dairy get slaughtered for their flesh so continuing to consume dairy is arbitrary and means you are still directly supporting animal slaughter.


You can learn more here: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/how-to-go-vegan/should-i-go-vegan-by-adopting-a-vegetarian-diet-first/#.UgD-PW37bBA


“Veganism is not about giving anything up or losing anything; it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable.”  - Gary L. Francione
I recommend you to study this article: http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2013/08/are_we_the_animal-lovers_we_th.html


More about the suffering of cows used for dairy:
Science knows very little about animals. This statement that a cow wouldn't suffer unless their child, who was forcefully separated from her mother, is in close proximity has no valid basis. It is just an assumption.
We know that cows experience stress when separated from cows that are close to them: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Cows-best-friends-stressed...


Can this unnecessary suffering be justified for a glass of milk or a steak?
Only if you don't care about animals, their lives and their suffering.
Animals have a fundamental interest of living. It is not just to take this from them just for a trivial palate pleasure.



Different mammal species have evovled to get their mother's milk directly from their mother. This is what is best for their optimal health. When you (any nonvegan) separate a calf from his/her mother you are not doing it in the interest of the calf, nor her mother, but because of your egoistical interest in having the milk.


---
More writings:Cattle were penned on their own, with their best friend or with another cow they did not know for 30 minutes and their heart rates were measured at 15-second intervals.


The research showed cows were very social animals which often formed close bonds with friends in their herd.


'When heifers have their preferred partner with them, their stress levels in terms of their heart rates are reduced compared with if they were with a random individual,' Ms McLennan said.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2011124/Cows-best-friends-stressed-separated.html#ixzz2wWloUbD0


---
I am not jumping around. The article shows that cows form close bonds with each other. We know that they do this especially with their children.
We also know that their is suffering involved in separating cows that have close bond with each other. Thus, slaughter, or the separation of cows involved in the dairy industry can't be morally justified.


That is, if you think it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals, you can't justify slaughtering them or separating them from each other for your palate pleasure or convenience.
Great quotes to use
"Veganism is not just a diet. It is not just a "lifestyle." It is a nonviolent act of defiance. It is a refusal to participate in the oppression of the innocent and the vulnerable. It is a rejection of the insidious idea that harming other sentient beings should be considered a "normal" part of life. It represents a paradigm shift toward a new default position that violence for pleasure, amusement, or convenience can *never* be justified. Join the revolution of the heart. Go vegan." -Gary L. Francione


Personal choice


Do you think that harming and killing an animal for pleasure/convenience is a personal choice??


Being vegan, i.e. not treating animals as resources and refusing to participate in the exploitation of animals, including the exploitation of animals for “palatable pleasure”/convenience (i.e. animal products), is not a matter of ‘personal choice’. I will explain why.


“One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.”


Animal abuse is wrong because animals have a moral value. But if animals have a moral value, they also have the right to not be used as a resource, including the right not to be killed by humans.


------------------------------------------Another approach:



every method of acquiring food leads to the death or suffering of animals, so it is immoral to eat.


No, you can't compare intentionally inflicting harm against someone, against the unintentional harm that exists in the production of all food, and all other items.


Please consider this:
"When Professor Archer talks about these plagues and how we’ve got to kill all these rats well yes, that plague occurs in the context in which we engage in absolutely mind-numbing violence, completely unnecessary violence, against billions of animals. We don’t take animal life seriously; we don’t take animals’ suffering seriously. If we had those plagues that Professor Archer talks about and we lived in a vegan world where we did respect animal life we’d come up with better solutions.


It seems that what Professor Archer is saying is that we can’t avoid killing animals in living our lives so therefore eating them is OK. Let’s look at the argument in a human context.


You can get an actuary to tell you that if you build a road and the speed limit is 60 mph you’re going to have X number of deaths, 70 mph X-plus number of deaths, and so on. But building the road is still different from intentionally killing those numbers of people. Whatever activity we engage in, even manufacturing the most innocuous, the most beneficial product, it’s going to involve human beings who will become injured and get killed in the making of those products. But that doesn’t mean then that we should throw up our hands and say, ‘Well violence against humans is just fine because our daily activity involves harming human beings’."
Quote: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vege-mice-response/4674360
I eat meat, because consuming a vegan diet with B-12-supplement is unnatural
The B-12 is not synthesized by animals, but by bacteria, and it is found in the soil and can be found in plants.
Here are some articles about B-12:
http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm
http://www.tcolincampbell.org/courses-resources/article/b12-breakthrough-missing-nutrient-found-in-plants/


But lets’ assume that humans couldn’t find B-12 in plants, and that humans only could get it in a synthesized form (and many people need to get it in this way today because of how agriculture is designed these days). We still have a moral obligation not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death towards non-human animals, and this includes consuming animal foods for pleasure/convenience. We can thrive on a vegan diet [see scientific references below] and thus it is morally wrong to choose to consume an animal foods-diet instead of a vegan diet.
The “I consume animal foods because it is ‘natural’” is not a legitimate argument for consuming animal foods: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UgJW022KLBA


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


In addition to the American Dietetic organization, "private and public sector health organizations across a continuum of care agree that a well planned, plant-only diet can be healthy. Organizations that have made public statements of the healthiness of a plant-only diet include dietetic associations, governmental bodies and private clinics.


The American Dietetic Association (1), Dietitians of Canada (2), the British National Health Service (3), the British Nutrition Foundation (4), the Dietitians Association of Australia (5), the United States Department of Agriculture (6), the National Institutes of Health (7), the Mayo Clinic (8), the Heart and Stroke Foundation (9), among others, all provide information on healthy living as well as nutritional suggestions for plant-based diets."


1. See: http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357
2. See: http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-Resources-A-Z/Factsheets/Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx
3. See: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx
4. See: http://www.nutrition.org.uk/publications/briefingpapers/vegetarian-nutrition
5. See: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/healthy-eating-tips/tips-for-vegetarian.html
6. See http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/vegetarian-diets/
7. See: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_120152.html
8. See: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegetarian-diet/HQ01596


Vegans are elitist
http://veganarchismaintnojoke.tumblr.com/post/55697206755/pretentious-vegans-ill-debunk-this-after-i-find-my

But we should take care of human rights, first!
What do you think of this quote from Eat like you care:
“First, no one is asking that anyone stop working on or being concerned about human rights issues. On the contrary, we agree that there is a terrible amount of racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, and all sorts of other injustice, and we think it’s great that people care about and work on these issues.
But what does that have to do with what we are talking about in this book, which is simply that if you agree that animals matter at all, you are committed to not consume them any longer? The answer is nothing. Even if you think that any and all human rights issues are more important than the issue of animal exploitation, you have to eat while you are fighting for those great causes. How does eating, for example, tofu instead of steak impede your ability to fight for human rights causes? It doesn’t. If anything, a healthy vegan diet will give you more energy to pursue those causes.


And that’s where this analysis comes in. So you just leave your morning meeting with the local child protection agency in connection with your efforts to get better protection for kids and you want to grab something for lunch. Where is the conflict between you and the cow that justifies your having a hamburger? Indeed, if you have the burger, then you have just, by your action, rejected the principle that you claim to accept: that inflicting suffering on animals requires a moral justification.
You don’t have one.


Second, even if you are only concerned about human rights issues, you ought to be concerned about animal exploitation as well because it is directly connected to a significant human rights issue. As we discussed earlier, the amount of resources required to produce animal foods is multiples of what is required to produce plant foods. Although there are certainly political issues that hamper the distribution of food, it is also the case that animal agriculture and a diet of animal foods is increasingly a threat to world hunger, our water supply, our topsoil, etc”
Quote by Gary L. Francione from http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/




Violence anywhere, hurts everyone, everywhere. We have a moral obligation to fight against all violence and discrimination. Just because someone is of a different species, doesn't mean that the injustices and suffering that they are experiencing is less important.
It is not aggressive to stand up for veganism and condemn the exploitation of nonhuman animals and claim that it is morally repugnant to consume animal foods, just like that it isn't aggressive to condement exploitation of humans.
Interesting article about rehabilitation and  a vegan diet:
http://vegetarianspotlight.com/2011/vegan-diet-impacts-california-prison/.




What do we do with all nonhuman animals. They will overpopulate the world, eat all our food/become a threat to us


With all our technology, the nonhuman animals are no threat at all to our survival, including us being able to grow enough food to feed all the population.




Do you think it is right to harm and kill any animal despite that there is no need for this?
Shouldn’t we kill animals for food so that they don’t become overpopulated and starve?
What happens if the human populations grows to where it can no longer eat and survive?? Starvation.
So do you think that the possibility for people starving justifies exploiting, harming and killing humans. No, of course not. Why would the possibility of nonhuman animals starving justify the exploitation, violence and killing of nonhuman animals?


What do you think of this?:
We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?


Pleasure. Convenience.


So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.


If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.




They will starve if no one domesticate them, feed them and kill them:
Say that more than 1000 billion humans were killed for food each year, and that there would be humans starving if we stopped exploiting them and killing them.
So do you think that the possibility for people starving justifies exploiting, harming and killing humans. No, of course not. Why would the possibility of nonhuman animals starving justify the exploitation, violence and killing of nonhuman animals?


What do you think of this?:
We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?


Pleasure. Convenience.


So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.


If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.




Another answer:
If more than 1000 billion humans were exploited and killed for food ever year, and many of these would starve if we stopped exploiting and killing these 1000 billion humans for food, would you say it is immoral to stop the exploitation and killing of humans for food - even though many people would starve??
The same applies to the nonhuman animals. Intentionally harming and killing of any sentient being can never be justified when there is no necessity for the violence.


Killing an healthy animal ALWAYS harms the animals, because that the animal has an interest of living.


Please also remember that in a vegan world we would take care of all the animals that we had domesticated to the best of our ability, without harming and killing them. We would feed them.


Please consider this:
“Being vegan is easy. Are there social pressures that encourage you to continue to eat, wear, and use animal products? Of course there are. But in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and ableist society, there are social pressures to participate and engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism. At some point, you have to decide who you are and what matters morally to you. And once you decide that you regard victimizing vulnerable nonhumans is not morally acceptable, it is easy to go and stay vegan”
― Gary L. Francione


“Veganism is not about giving anything up or losing anything; it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable”
― Gary L. Francione




Veganism is extreme
What is extreme is that we regard some animals as members of our family while, at the same time, we stick forks into the corpses of other animals.


What is extreme is thinking that it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering and death on other sentient creatures simply because we enjoy the taste of animal products or because we like the look of clothes made from animals.


What is extreme is that we say that we recognize that “unnecessary” suffering and death cannot be morally justified and then we proceed to engage in exploitation on a daily basis that is completely unnecessary.


What is extreme is pretending to embrace peace while we make violence, suffering, torture and death a daily part of our lives.




If we would all become vegan-animals wouldnt have a place to stay- since we would transform a lot of land into fields-we all die in the end-suffering.


Basically, you are saying that using more land would unintentionally kill some animals, so lets not stop the intentional killing of animals in order to avoid the unintentional killing of animals. Would you also think that it would be justified with intentionally killing humans in order to avoid the unintentional killing of humans? No, you wouldn’t.
We wouldn’t have to use any more fields, since we would use all the fields that are used for animal agriculture today to instead feed the human population. I gathered some resources here showing how much more efficient plant agriculture and how many more people that can be fed per acre of arable land using a plant-only agriculture:


Finally, What do you think of this:
Pleasure. Convenience.
So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.



<Outright animal abuse and eating animals because you have been socially indoctrinated and conditioned to are two entirely different subjects.>


There is no moral distinction. The matter of social indoctrination may be relevant to a psychological assessment, but not to the moral one. Our criticism of Vick is completely inconsistent with our consumption of animal foods as far as morality is concerned. And the point is that we all agree that "unnecessary" suffering is wrong. So let's act on that in a
consistent manner.


I am opposed to factory farming, but not to ordinary farming
Nothing less than the abolition of all animal use and domestication will abolish also the worst practises in the animal industry. Just like the slaves in USA weren’t protected (despite that there were some laws) as long as they were “property” under the law, the animals today will never be protected as long as they are “property”/domesticated by humans. It is further discussed here by Law Professor Gary L. Francione [1].
As long as we allow animals to be victims of any kind of unnecessary suffering, violence and death, we allow and are complicit for animals being victims of ALL kinds of unnecessary suffering, violence and death (including the completely unnecessary suffering, violence and death that animals are enduring in order to become/produce animal foods, milk, meat and eggs).


What do you think of this?:
“We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience. And since we can live and thrive on a vegan diet [2] without harming animals, we have no moral justification for harming and killing animals.
Please read this whole article: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


1. http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=rutgersnewarklwps


Another answer:
All farming involves suffering to various degrees. How you can say that some farming method that involves suffering is morally justified, but that another farming method which also involves suffering isn't? It is very arbitrary. Of course extreme amount of suffering is worse than "some suffering", but it doesn't make any sense morally that any amount of unnecessary suffering is morally justified...


If you believe that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering to animals, it doesn't make any sense morally to approve of any kind of animal farming.



31.But you are inconsistent since you walk in the forest and may kill bugs by walking in the forest
Unfortunately it is impossible not to inadvertently harm any sentient beings. If you walk in the forest you may inadvertently step on a bug, if you walk in the city you may inadvertently step on a bug, and you contribute to wearing out the streets; and the production of streets (including all the chemicals and materials used) causes inadvertent harm of both human and nonhuman animals. That we can’t avoid inadvertent harm, doesn’t justify us to unnecessary
suffering and violence for unnecessary and completely frivolous reasons.


But vegans also harm animals through their actions
Everything you do causes some amount of harm. The fact that manufacturing products results in human deaths does not mean that we don't prohibit intentional homicide. So yes, you can--and will--still do harm to nonhumans and humans if you are a vegan. But if you aren't a vegan, you engage in the analogue of intentional homicide.


But vegans think they are better than anyone else
It is not strange that non-vegans think veganism is about the ego of vegans. Veganism is the opposite though. It is about stopping the exploitation of vulnerable beings who has no chance. Further removed from egotistical is hard to come. So think about that next time you talk about vegans. Vegans do not think we are better than anyone else which is exactly why we do not support others being killed for unnecessary reasons that can easily be replaced by plant based foods.
Quote Rune.


--Someone who refuses to cause agony and death unnecessarily is, generally, considered to be adhering to a higher moral standard than a person who revels in agony and death.


Is *peace* not a virtue? Is *compassion* not a virtue? Do we scorn peace and compassion in favor of our own pleasures?
Quote T


-----
But species will go extinct, if we are not exploiting animals.
Do you think it is morally justified to cause unnecessary harm, violence and death to animals? I recommend this article?: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/what-michael-vick-taught-us/#.UiIrDD_9VyI


It is not right to exploit animals, just to save any domesticated species to go extinct



But God/Bible/Jesus say we can consume animal foods.
For anyone religious and/or for anyone who think it is wrong to harm and be violent towards animals for frivolous reasons:


If you are claiming that God is a loving, merciful and nonviolent God, this must also mean that we can't justify imposing suffering, violence and death on animals for pleasure/convenience or any other frivolous reasons. You must also advocate that we should help and defend those who are defenseless and vulnerable in our society, including many people and other animals.


We don’t have any nutritional need for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal foods [1]. All animals are harmed by being killed because they have an interest of living (regardless of whether they are brutally slaughtered in a slaughter house or are killed in hunting, or are killed painlessly while sleeping, etc.) There is no animal that wants to be killed by us. It is very easy to treat other animals with nonviolence, respect, love and mercy, to treat them as we ourselves want to be treated, and this is also our moral obligation. I stopped consuming animal foods this autumn. This was a very simple choice, and my choice has impacted me very positively both physically and emotionally. And most importantly: I am not longer participating in being violent towards, harming and killing vulnerable, defenseless and sentient beings. I reject that palate pleasure/tradition (including religion)/convenience are legitimate reasons   to justify the needless violence, harm and killing of animals for animal foods (including meat, milk, eggs, honey, etc.). We don’t need any animal foods for our survival or to live a life of optimal health, so consuming animal foods is to harm animals for frivolous and illegitimate reasons.


Animals are vulnerable. Animals are defenseless against the people who are violent towards them and are harming them for frivolous and unnecessary reasons. If you are not a vegan: Stop harming and killing animals for frivolous reasons. Start living as you are preaching: Treat all animals with love, respect, compassion and nonviolence; and help them instead of exploiting the vulnerable of our society. Preach nonviolence with all of your deeds – your message is not consistent or credible if you say that you stand up for nonviolence, but put violence on your body (e.g. leather, down, etc.) and put violence in your body. This includes milk from cows that are exploited and killed at an age of 5, or eggs from chickens that are exploited and killed, or any other animal product. Consuming animal foods perpetuate our society’s view that animals are resources/property, and as long as they are property they will be exploited [Further reading: See note 2]. Furthermore animals are individuals,
not resources, and should be treated as individuals, not as resources.


Don’t say that a loving, nonviolent and compassionate God is advocating completely unnecessary suffering, violence and death on animals with an interest and a wish of a continued existence, and not to suffer; and who definitively doesn’t want to be killed for humans frivolous palate pleasure/convenience/tradition of wearing dead animals, consuming animal foods, etc.


“The most violent weapon on  earth is the table fork.”  Gandhi


Please go vegan! Please live a nonviolent life towards all human and nonhuman animals!
Reject racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, speciecism and all other discrimination and violence!


Another answer:


If you believe that God is full of Compassion, you can’t believe that God justifies using animals for food, clothing, hygiene products, etc., because it isn’t compassionate to harm and kill another sentient being for the palate pleasure or convenience of animal foods and other trivial animal use.
If you believe that God is Just, you can’t believe that God justifies people’s nonveganism, because there is no justice in inflicting unnecessary suffering, harm, violence and death on vulnerable and sentient animals.


Is the use of animals for food a good reason to harm and kill animals? Even extremely conservative health organizations, including American Dietic Association, acknowledge that we can live an optimally healthy life on a vegan diet [1]. Thus we have a choice when we are in the food store. We can choose to harm, use and kill animals in order to get nutrition through the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, honey and other animal foods; or we can buy and get our nutrition from vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and other foods from the ground, i.e. a vegan diet. If your not vegan, I hope that you will make the choice of going vegan.
2. https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/678133278873096




But the animals wouldn’t have existed if not bred for food
The same argument can be used to defense exploiting animals in dog fighting, and breeding up animals for any other animal abuse. You can also breed up human slaves, and justify this by the same argument. Why would this argument ever by a legitimate reason to participate in causing animals needless suffering, violence and death?


Humans can live and thrive on a vegan diet. I gathered references from peer-reviewed journals here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html


Please consider this:


Pleasure. Convenience.


So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.


If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.Uf1Zx237bBA
And read this article:


But I honor the animals that I kill
But I honor the animals that I kill/honor their sacrifice You don't honor any sentient being by killing him/her needlessly. All sentient beings have an interest of a continued existence.You can't justify killing sentient beings needlessly by calling it 'the circle of life' - neither the killing of human animals nor nonhuman animals. I gathered several articles in peer-reviewed journals showing that a vegan diet is healthy for everyone: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html


But domesticated animals that I breed and kill for food get a better life, then they lived a better life than they would have fending for themselves.


I do believe that there is more suffering involved for an animal on a ”free range” farm compared to the suffering that many wild animals go through. However, in any case, that some wild animals inflict other wild animals say 10 units of suffering, doesn’t give us any moral justification to breed up and inflict say 9 units of suffering on domesticated animals. That a wild animal may abuse another wild animal for pleasure, doesn’t give us any moral justification to abuse with a domesticated animal for pleasure – even if our abuse inflicts less suffering compared to the suffering that the wild animal inflicts her victims. That a wild animal kills another wild animal for pleasure doesn’t give us any moral justification for killing animals for palate pleasure or convenience of animal foods. That a carnivore kills an animal out of necessity, doesn’t give us any moral justification to kill animals for palate pleasure or convenience of animal foods – to make victims out of vulnerable sentient beings instead of choosing to buy a vegan diet.


Furthermore, please consider this:
"There is no moral difference between flesh and other animal products such as dairy:
Female cows used for dairy get slaughtered for their flesh so continuing to consume dairy is arbitrary and means you are still directly supporting animal slaughter.
Male calves will not produce milk so they are worthless to the dairy industry so they are removed from their mothers so they do not consume their mother’s milk and slaughtered for their flesh (veal).  The dairy industry is the veal industry.
Female calves are removed from their mothers so they do not consume their mother’s milk and raised to become a cow used for dairy or slaughtered for their flesh.


There is no moral difference whatsoever between flesh and other animal products such as eggs:
Female chickens used for eggs get slaughtered for their flesh so continuing to consume eggs is arbitrary and means you are still directly supporting animal slaughter.
Male chicks will not lay eggs so they are worthless to the egg industry.  They are of a breed that is not profitable to raise for flesh so they are ground up or suffocated shortly after hatching."


Quote from: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/how-to-go-vegan/should-i-go-vegan-by-adopting-a-vegetarian-diet-first/#.UuJCN7TKxEY




Answer 2
Using your analogy, I could say, it is okay for me to murder a person “humanely” that I knew was going to be murdered in a brutal way - then I do a compassionate deed and save him from a brutal death. But you wouldn't accept this reasoning. But now you are doing the same flaw in your reasoning when it comes to nonhuman animals.


Please consider this: Please consider this:
“Being vegan is easy. Are there social pressures that encourage you to continue to eat, wear, and use animal products? Of course there are. But in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and ableist society, there are social pressures to participate and engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism. At some point, you have to decide who you are and what matters morally to you. And once you decide that you regard victimizing vulnerable nonhumans is not morally acceptable, it is easy to go and stay vegan”
― Gary L. Francione


“Veganism is not about giving anything up or losing anything; it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable”
― Gary L. Francione
#


Answer 3:
Is it relevant which animals that suffers the most or least?


Possibly some human slaves suffer less than humans who are independent and can control their lives. Does this justify human slavery. No, it doesn't. The same analysis applies to nonhuman animals if we claim that they have moral value.


Furthermore, the property status of animals will necessarily and unavoidably result in many animals enduring extreme amount of suffering. See reference in my previous post.


In order to farm and/or kill an animal, one has to disregard the following interests of the animals:
1. The animals interest in not suffering. There will always be some amount of suffering involved.
2. The animals friends and families interest in not losing their friend or family member.


3. The animals- collective interest in not being property under law, which unavoidably will lead to and enable animals to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, and get many of their other interest disregarded even when there is no true conflict between a human and an animal. More to read here: http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/


If animals have a moral value, which we admit if we claim it is morally wrong to abuse an animal, we can exploit an animal and disregard her interests when we have absolutely no need to do this, when there is no compulsion whatsoever for us to harm and kill her.


----------Stop forcing your opinion on me
You are forcing your lifestyle toward innocent, defenseless and vulnerable sentient beings.


Of course we should oppose when animals are harmed and killed for palate pleasure/convenience/tradition. It is all unnecessary.
I became vegan last autumn when I understood how wrong it is to partake in animal exploitation for foods.


I recommend: We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?


Pleasure. Convenience.


So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.


If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.


"Just remember if the entire population went vegan the dairy cow and many other groups of animals would go extinct or dwindle."


Yes, they would. The domesticated animals that we started breeding and creating about 10000 years ago may go extinct if all world go vegan. The species that we have created may go extinct.
This wouldn't harm any individuals. So this doesn't constitute any moral problem.


I can provide an example from a human context.


Say that we had been breeding and enslaving a specific group of the human species that we were exploiting and eating. Would it be morally justifiable to continue to breed and exploit this group of people in order for this specific group of people not to go extinct?


But. those who produce vegetables kill animals that “intrude on their land and eat their food”.. If you kill animals or if you eat vegetables, you still are a part of inflicting suffering on animals. Only way may be for you to grow your own food
That is how vegans grow their food. That is how it will be in a vegan society. And to reach a vegan society we must stop breeding and hunting animals for palate pleasure/convenience.


Those opposed to slavery in Great Britain and USA during that era couldn't live without inadvertently doing actions that to some extent was related to slave labor. There is a vast moral difference between this inadvertent participation compared to directly participating in slave labour and paying for those products.


The same is true in this era of animal exploitation. Either you do refuse to be a part in it, or you participate in it by buying animal foods, clothes produced by animals, etc. Either you are a part of ending all animal exploitation, or you are a part paying for it and perpetuating it 3 times per day.



39. Question 2: Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?


Answer: Just as the moral status of a human or animal is not determined by who caused the human or the animal to come into existence, the application of a moral concept is not determined by who devised it. If moral benefits went only to the devisers of moral concepts, then most of humankind would still be outside the moral community. Rights concepts as we currently understand them were actually devised as a way of protecting the interests of wealthy white male landowners; indeed, most moral concepts were historically devised by privileged males to benefit other privileged males. As time went on, we recognized that the principle of equal consideration required that we treat similar cases in a similar way and we subsequently extended rights (and other moral benefits) to other humans. In particular, the principle of equal consideration required that we regard as morally odious the ownership of some humans by other humans. If we are going to apply the principle of equal consideration to animals, then we must extend to animals the right not to be treated as a resource.
It is irrelevant whether animals devised rights or can even understand the concept of rights. We do not require that humans be potential devisers of rights or understand the concept of rights in order to be beneficiaries of rights. For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.


40.But I have mal absorbtion problems and can’t live on a vegan diet
There are so many doctors who are very uneducated about nutrition, and steeped in the myth that humans need meat and other animal foods for optimal health and to resolve health issues. So why trust them when the evidence tells otherwise (doctors contradicts each others, you have to research the issue since millions of animals suffering and lives are at stake base on the decision you make, and the personal example you set for others)?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ Than they are more educated doctors, who can find vegan solutions to problems, e.g. http://www.drmcdougall.com/ (who advocates a plant foods diet of health reasons).
Several vegans have malabsorption-problems caused by their previous nonvegan diet, and they find vegan solutions to their problems.
Humans have no genetic adaptations for meat consumption: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8


Doing only 1 month on a vegan diet, most/all health problems are probably related to a previous nonvegan diet. Health problems can be solved through an adequate whole foods vegan diet without processed foods and oils (and in case of malabsorbtion see above nutritional links). So we can all consume a vegan diet, and thus everything else is inflicting unnecessary suffering, violence and death on animals: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
Hope you'll consider this! All the best!


Another answer:
Sorry it didn't work out. But I think alot of it has to do with what you eat. Eating a starch-based diet with fruits and vegetables, without oils, no processed vegan foods and small amount of vegetable fats (e.g. nuts) doesn’t lead to weight increases.
There are many unhealthy vegan diets out there though.
You are healthier on an average vegan diet compared to an average omnivore diet:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/omnivore-vs-vegan-nutrient-deficiencies-2/
Fatigue? Maybe some of this could help: http://www.theveganrd.com/2012/09/ten-tips-for-staying-happy-and-healthy-on-a-vegan-diet.html


Did you check whether you absorbed all nutrients you needed?
And:
The only known human genetic and physiological adaptation to animal food consumption consists of lactase persistence, which occurs only in a relatively small portion of the world's population (primarily people having northern European ancestry).  This adaptation does not dictate a dietary requirement for milk products, but only confers persistence of the ability to digest milk sugar into adulthood.


In contrast, all humans have numerous very specific anatomical, physiological, and genetic adaptations to consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8


So it doesn’t make sense that a well-planned and healthy vegan diet would cause health problems.




41. But vegans eat vegetables using nonvegan fertilizer
Maybe you can use this argument.
Consuming animal foods he would agree with is morally wrong because it harms animals where there is no necessity for it -see e.g. this reasoning of the first page: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/


On the other hand - the ordinary person do not have the possibility to get vegetables from veganic gardening.


The 2 cases are different.
One involves intentionally harming and killing an animal where there is a choice not do;
and one involves using a by product from the cows that are domesticated because of the choice by the nonvegan to consume animal foods, use animals as clothes, etc.


The nonvegan choice is to harm despite the lack of availiability of products that don't inflict any intentional harm upon animals; and it is this primarily this choice that makes it hard for vegans to get products that are grown using veganic gardening methods.


If we have the possibility we grow our own food using veganic gardening or buy such food.


In a vegan world world we would only use veganic gardening, and this we are striving for.




42. But I am addicted to animal foods
All it takes is an understanding that is unnecessary and wrong to exploit animals for food, and then a determination and strong will enough to act on this understanding.


I agree with these words:
" I resist calling taste preferences--even strong ones--"addictions." That relieves people of responsibility. The fact that we like something--even a lot--does not make it an "addiction." It just means we like something a lot."


I know that dairy products have an opiate like-effect. That is not the same as a real strong addiction e.g. to a drug, including its withdrawal effects. Cow milk  has an opiate like-effect on cows, and human milk on humans, but both cows and humans manage to stop consuming their mothers milk. People who care about morals and want to the right thing can also easily stop consuming dairy products.


I like this dialogue:


An email received this morning from the U.K: "I wrote to you late last summer telling you that I was one of those people who ate cheese and had an addiction to casomorphins. You said you were highly skeptical about all of that but suggested I try giving up cheese completely for a week (you said--"go cold tofurkey" LOL!) and that every time I craved it, I should visualise the separation of a mother cow from her calf, one of the many horrible things required to make dairy products. I was anxious about trying this but I gave it a go in December. It worked!! I had very intense craving but the visualisation worked! I am now a vegan. I am grateful. Thanks for caring enough to answer an email from a person you didn’t even know."


My reply: "That's great news. As I am sure I told you at the time, I had a friend who gave up smoking cigarettes by carrying a picture of a person who had advanced lung cancer and every time he wanted a cigarette, he stared at the picture. If it can work for smoking, it can certainly work for any cheese "addiction." If you are the same person I am thinking of, I recall that you had recently had a child, right? I am sure that's why I suggested that visualization--it involved something particularly meaningful to you (a violation of the mother-child bond). Anyway, I am very happy to hear this. Thanks for writing."


Another answer:I resist calling taste preferences--even strong ones--"addictions." That relieves people of responsibility. The fact that we like something--even a lot--does not make it an "addiction." It just means we like something a lot.
https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach


43. But no one would save the dog before the human in a burning house-scenario:
"According to Professor Robert Jensen, an otherwise progressive thinker:


“[N]o one really believes the quip, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,” suggesting the equality of all life (or, at least, all mammalian life). To test that: If there were a rat, a pig, a dog, and a human child in the road facing an oncoming truck and you could save only one, which would you chose?”


Let’s take Jensen’s test. Even if we answer that we would save the human child, what does that tell us about the morality of eating animals and animal products, or using animals in circuses, zoos, or rodeos, or wearing animals?


Answer: nothing at all.


To see this clearly, assume that there are two humans in front of the truck–an extremely old person and a baby. Even if we would save the baby, does that mean it’s morally acceptable to eat old people, or makes shoes out of them, or use them in circuses, zoos, or rodeos, use them as forced organ donors to save the young, or otherwise treat them exclusively as resources?


No, of course not.


Assume that the two humans in front of the truck are two human babies: Jensen’s child and the child of another. Jensen would clearly save his child. Does that mean that the other child has lesser moral value and may be treated exclusively as a resource?


No, of course not.


Moreover, when we are deciding what to eat tonight, we are not in any situation that is analogous to the either/or situation that Jensen posits. If, as Jensen acknowledges, we don’t need to consume animal products, then we are under no compulsion that forces us to choose. If we eat meat, dairy, or eggs when we can choose to eat vegetables, fruits, grains, beans, and nuts, then we are participating in suffering and death simply for palate pleasure. If animals matter morally at all, imposing suffering and death on them for a reason as transparently frivolous as palate pleasure cannot be justified.


Jensen simply ignores the very question that we need to examine: can we justify speciesism? If you asked a white person in 1830 whom he would save from death–another white person or a black person–the answer would be crystal clear. In fact, the white person would probably not even understand the question and would think it lunacy even to ask it. So our moral intuitions are a most unreliable guide when the very problem is that our moral intuitions are affected and infected by pervasive prejudice that we cannot seem to explain or justify rationally.


When I say “all sentient beings are equal,” what I mean is that, with respect to any sentient being, we are required to give a compelling moral reason to justify or excuse imposing suffering and death on that being. I maintain that my view here is not only not controversial, but that most people actually agree with it.


What we need to see is that pleasure, amusement, or convenience cannot suffice as “compelling moral reasons” for eating, wearing, or using animals. That necessarily leads us to rule out 99.99% of all animal use as morally unjustifiable from the outset.


Robert Jensen is a generally progressive person. He really needs to rethink his views on animal ethics. I hope he will consider that if we fed all the grain we feed to livestock directly to human beings, we could go a long way toward reducing human starvation. It takes many pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of flesh; it takes many more gallons of water to produce a pound of flesh than a pound of potatoes. Frankly, if Jensen were to think that animals have no moral value whatsoever, and he accorded moral value to humans alone, he would still be committed to a vegan diet."


https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/694372023915888


---
Questions


How to resist temptations


This can be helpful for everyone who is willing to quit animal foods:


"For those who are are still tempted to consume dairy--when you feel the temptation, consider:


*the fact that cows are forcibly impregnated


*the fact that cows have their calves taken away almost immediately after birth (maybe a couple of days on organic "happy" farms) causing horrible emotional suffering


*the fact that the male calves are sold and killed for veal


*the fact that female calves end up in the dairy industry


*the fact that cows exploited for dairy often suffer mastitis, a painful condition


*the fact that dairy cows are killed after about 5 or 6 years in the same slaughterhouse in which "meat" animals are killed.


Then ask yourself: do you really want it that badly?" https://www.facebook.com/abolitioni.../posts/700234473329643


Another answer:


I think the first thing you should do is make sure you don't approach veganism as some kind of ascetic discipline where you resist temptation for the sake of a higher goal. (Not saying that's how you see it, but some do.) As long as you approach things in that way, anything like veganism probably won't last long, since animal products will just be some "forbidden pleasure" that you'll secretly feel "deprived" of. And every time you "cave in", you also reinforce the animal product as something edible and tasty, thus making future "caving in" more likely. You should rather find new positive possibilities within veganism -- new recipes, new favorite foods -- and explore those.


Don't commit to depriving yourself of things; commit to not seeing things as deprivation in the first place.


When I see animal products somewhere, it's more like seeing cardboard: something inedible that doesn't particularly interest me. I think that this is the result of having been vegan for a longer time. So one thing I can say is that when you stick with it, it will probably be easier over time.


One thing that might actually help is if you try to eat healthier within veganism, so that even vegan products will now appear as something you have cravings for. That way, you won't focus on animal products so much. For myself, I can say that since I don't want to eat myself to an early death, there are a lot of vegan products I crave but do not eat, and for this reason my mind doesn't even go into all the animal products I could eat; my cravings and "caving in" focus on vegan things.
Quote from Jan Vilse.


44. But is not wrong to sterilize animals
I agree with this paragraph: "There are some advocates who think that “animal rights” means that nonhumans have some sort of right to reproduce, so that it is wrong to sterilize nonhumans. If that view is correct, then we would be morally committed to allowing all domesticated species to continue to reproduce indefinitely. We cannot limit this “right of reproduction” to dogs and cats alone. Moreover, it makes no sense to say that we have acted immorally in domesticating nonhuman animals but we are now committed to allowing them to continue to breed. We made a moral mistake by domesticating nonhumans in the first place; what sense does it make to perpetuate it?"


Are you saying that we should avoid sterilizing animals all together? This would create enormous problems of e.g. all wild cats and dogs living homeless in cities, with more animals suffering and dieing as a consequence.
On the other hand, if you say that it is okay to sterilize animals in those circumstances; you may also understand why we shouldn't perpetuate the domestication of any animals. At least if you understand why domestication is morally wrong.


But if you have animals and you allow them to get kids, you will create a situation where animals are dependent on you and their decisions are largely limited by the environment in which you let them live. As domesticated animals, they are very limited, and they become dependent on you for their survival. There is no real freedom for domesticated animals.


Whatever you choose to do - there will be control involved.


But, to work towards to end the system of domestication, is to work towards ending control.
To let domestication continue is to let a system of control continue forever.
You necessarily support a much bigger amount of control if you vote for that domestication should continue forever.


Furthermore,
By owning animals and perpetuating domestication, one is perpetuating the property status of animals, which enables all the animal abuse today of the domesticated animals. As long as any individual, human or nonhuman, is property under the law there will be no real protection; and this individual will be at risk of getting killed or harmed for whatever reason by her/his owner.


45. “Animals still aren't expressing themselves articulately, and this fantastic emotionalizing isn't going to get the world anywhere.”


1. "Animals still aren't expressing themselves articulately"
They don't need to. We don't have any justification of exploiting them just because we don't understand their language. We don't need to exploit animals in research to prove all things that easily can be observed, in order just to find out that they are able to suffer, able to form strong bonds, etc. We can just leave them alone, let them be free and stop killing them  and depriving them of freedom for our palate pleasure/convenience.


Torah and many other religious books supports animals being property, which enables every and all animal abuse that takes place of domesticate animals. Just like humans slaves couldn't and can't have any real rights and protection from suffering and death; the same is true with domesticated animals. Further reading proving this point: www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4999Ethics/Francione1996.pdf (7 page article)


".. but he may endeavour to shew, as I have done, that the mental faculties of man and the lower animals do not differ in kind, although immensely in degree. A difference in degree, however great, does not justify us in placing man in a distinct kingdom" -Charles Darwin


To claim that animals have emotions, that they are forming close bonds with each other, that they suffer when they are separated from each other; and claiming that they have a great capacity of suffering - is not "emotionalizing" anything. It is just describing things as they are.


46. But animals were put here for mans’ use
Henry S Salt in his book: Cum Grano: Verses and Epigrams 1931 explains why animals were NOT sent for us to use.
"The Animals, you say, were "sent"
For man's free use and nutriment.
Pray, then, inform me, and be candid,
Why came they aeons before Man did,
To spend long centuries on Earth,
Awaiting their Devourer's birth?
Those ill-timed chattels, sent from Heaven,
Were sure the maddest gift e'r given-
"Sent" for Man's usage (can Man believe it?)
When there was no Man to receive it!


Pauline Wooding Emma: Ever heard of Charles Darwin? Ever heard of evolution? We are all animals and have evolved from a single source. The obsession with division and categorisation is artificially human and arise out of convenient constructs. The notion that some animals have been "put on earth" for the use of others is nonsense. The fact that there are some animals who are obligate carnivores and can't survive without consuming others has no bearing on humans, who get by perfectly well (in fact are better off) without consuming flesh or other animal products. We can freely choose whether we eat or use animals and have plenty of choice to do otherwise.


Any form of animal usage is abuse when we can quite readily leave them alone to lead their lives - while the reality is that we artificially breed them, confine them, castrate them, remove babies from mothers, brand them, cut parts off them, pump them full of chemicals, force them to lead miserable, cramped, sometimes painful, short lives, all totally unnecessarily.

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar