FAQ - Frågor och svar om veganism/varför vegan?

Det är inte jag som författat boken så jag kan inte lägga ut allt som står i den...

Jag håller på att skriva min egen FAQ:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ye6bt0omfXkwMx_Iy5gVxziYi2YJ5It4tfUC0YtQ8tU/edit#
Här finns en annan FAQ: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/
Och här finns också några svar: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/search/label/reply%20to%20counter-arguments%20of%20veganism
Det finns även en massa fler motargument på min blogg som jag har besvarat.
Jag har tyvärr inte organiserat allting ännu.
Kommentera gärna på det som jag skrivit, och säg till om du saknar något motargument.
En del av boken finns gratis här: http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Like-You-Care-ebook/dp/B00DLTN43C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376050211&sr=8-1&keywords=eat+like+you+care
(Om du klickar på 'Look inside')

Svar på motargument för veganism (svenska): http://bloganders.blogspot.no/search/label/svar%20p%C3%A5%20motargument%20f%C3%B6r%20veganism

Counter-arguments to 'Humans are carnivores and must eat meat'

This is my reply to this erroneous comment: "I hope all U vegans and vegetarians realized we would still be monkeys in trees if the climate hadn't changed in Africa & we were forced out of the trees & in to the grasslands then started to incorporate large amounts of red meat into our diet which was needed and that was in why & how our brains developed the to the point of where we are now the dominant species and dominant mind on the planet ! we carnivores could not should not and will not give up meat eating because we are genetically predisposed to needing wanting and eating meat !!
END OF DISCUSSION !!!!"

My reply:
1. First of all, we don't need meat:
"“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)"

Thus, we are not carnivores.

2. It wasn't the meat, that caused us to evolve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0PF5R0ywp4

3. Do you think it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals? Of course you do.

Here’s the problem: at least 99.99% of animal use, which results in the suffering and death of animals, is unnecessary! At least 99.99% of animal use is for food, but humans can easily get their nutrition from plants.
If so, go vegan: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/why-veganism/#.Ue484W34V5s

4. Even if what you said was true, that it was meat that caused us to evolve. Think of this:
Question 6: If we did not exploit animals, we would not have society as we now know it. Does this fact not prove that animal use by humans is morally justified?Answer: No. In the first place, the question assumes that we would not have devised alternatives to animal use if that were necessary either because nonhuman animals were not available or because we made a moral decision not to exploit them as resources. Second, even if animal use were necessary for society as we presently know it, the same argument could be made with respect to any human activity. For example, without wars, patriarchy, and other forms of violence and exploitation, we would not have society as we now know it. The fact that a given activity was a necessary means to what some of us regard as a desirable end does not prove that the means were morally justified. Present-day Americans would not enjoy the level of prosperity that they now enjoy were it not for human slavery; that does not mean that slavery was a morally acceptable practice. Third, there is at least an argument that our present-day society, with its violence, pollution, inequitable distribution of resources, and various forms of injustice is less desirable an end than some think, and that we ought not be so eager to endorse the means that got us where we are today.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.Ue4_kG34V5s

5. We are definitely not carnivores anatomically.
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.
Quote from: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Debunking-the-Paleo-Diet-Christ;search%3Adebunking%20paleo

More information gathered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/06/humans-are-herbivores-not-omnivoresmeat.html

----

Vegan reply to "I eat meat because I don't want to take B-12-supplement"

Because of how we grow and treat our soils and plants today, some people can't get it from plants: http://www.tcolincampbell.org/courses-resources/article/b12-breakthrough-missing-nutrient-found-in-plants/
However, we can get it from e.g. yeast, and this together with the fact that we can live a life of optimal health on a vegan diet we have no justification to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals.
It is always wrong to inflict animals suffering despite the lack of necessity, and consuming animal foods is doing this: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vege-mice-response/4674360

"We get our vitamin B-12 from yeast; omnivores get theirs from
meat. But all B-12 comes from bacteria—whether
it is found in the gut of ruminating animals who get
it from fermenting plant material in their hindgut,
or in certain strains of nutritional yeast. So if you
adopt a vegan diet but don’t consume an alternative
source of B-12, such as yeast, yes, you may get ill.
But there are plenty of people who have B-12
deficiencies despite their consumption of animal
foods."
Quote: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

--

A starch-based vegan diet with fruits and vegetables is very healthy: http://www.drmcdougall.com/

“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)

The only supplement you may need is B-12: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_supplements.html

B-12-deficiency and consumers of animal Foods:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000802.htm

"The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association. And they did find a connection. Supplement use dropped the percentage of volunteers in the danger zone--plasma B12 below 185 pmol/L--from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more times a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced, by nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone--from 23 and 24 percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.

Oddly, the researchers found no association between plasma B12 levels and meat, poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12 in the diet. “It’s not because people aren’t eating enough meat,” Tucker said. “The vitamin isn’t getting absorbed.”

In the elderly, it’s probably because they don’t secrete enough stomach acid to separate the vitamin from the meat proteins that tightly bind it. But Tucker can only speculate about the reasons for poor absorption of the vitamin from meat among younger adults or why B12 appears to be better absorbed from dairy products than from meats."

Vegan reply to 'I rather eat meat than let it go to waste'

Reply to a person:

Emily Steer,
First of all it is a matter of ethics.

” Please let me be very clear: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.

But I must say that the Vick case is rather dramatically demonstrating what I call our “moral schizophrenia” about animals. That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.

In this country alone, we kill over ten billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat—even those supposedly raised “humanely”—suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting. There is no “need” for us to eat meat, dairy, or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering, and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.

” Learn more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-note-about-michael-vick/#.UezrP234V5s

Second of all, even if we have the ability to kill animals doesn’t mean that it is morally justified. You could as well say ’Look we have canines, thus it is okay for meat to kill and eat humans’. Just because you have the ability to wage wars with your hands, thus mean that there is any moral justification to do this.

I recommend you to study this carefully to think more clearly about this issues: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UezWSm34V5t

”The animals are dieing anyway”. 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/

Some of the arguments that you present were also used to defened human slavery. Those people doing animal agriculture right now, can easily transition to a plants only agriculture. They can easily become self-sustained on their own food.
An plants only vegan diet can feed all the world, and we can eliminate poverty and hunger: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

 

----

Reply to Emily that wrote [I didn't adress all the arguments. They are already earlier adressed in this blog or in the links above.] I just see it as a desperate attempt to justify a position that can't be morally justified. You throw out alot of arguments that can easily be refuted. You have those arguments and bring them up to try to still your consciousness that understand on a deep (but maybe not conscious) level that it is wrong to hurt and kill animals for food.:

 

 

 

·  Emily Steier I'd rather eat the meat than have it go to waste--- and nuts and beans and shit are getting more expensive by the day. o.o I'm by no means a twig, I'm a woman with decent curves, that doesn't mean I'm fat either. I just know that Humans were made to be omnivores-- that our canines are there for a reason. I'm not going to make fun of anyone's lifestyle but I'm just saying, the animals are dying anyway, why let their death be in vain? SAVE THE ANIMALS FROM THE DUMPSTER! EAT THEM! And then the price of everything else would go up. There wouldn't be enough farmland to grow enough to meet the supply. We would starve as a people and the animals will die anyway. Because there will be no need for them we'd have to dramatically cull their numbers, Farmers and families would be out of work, people who have herded cattle and died protecting their flock would be lost in vain. There is balance. There has to be balance. We have to hunt, have to kill, because as humans we're overpopulating can't have a lot of animals overpopulating as well so they'd have to be culled.. then what would happen to their bodies, what will feed that tiny little dog can't expect it to be able to survive on veggies, carnivores, omnivores, herbivores. If you can afford to eat vegan don't bash the people who cannot.

 

 

Morality: Why becoming vegan/stop eating meat and other animal foods - is not 'a matter of opinon'

First read this:  Vegan reply to 'Morality is a matter of opinion'

You are rejecting an objective morality and then you are claiming that I have the burden of proof. I disagree. You can’t prove that morals are subjective. It is your opinion. I think the burden of proof is on the person that is trying to claim that it is acceptable to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon other sentient beings – humans as well as nonhumans. Only by being apathic or endorsing other sentient beings being inflicted unnecessary suffering and death, can you create any real suffering and harm. You can’t have any theoretical certainty about your position at all. You are, I hope, trying to live a life of compassion and love towards your fellow human beings. You only need to extend this love and compassion towards nonhuman animals and stop inflicting unnecessary harm upon them by going vegan. As Philosopher Gary Francione clearly demonstrates in his writings that the case for becoming vegan is very strong; and shows that you are required to go vegan to live according to your moral belief that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon nonhuman animals: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
You probably already try to follow the principle of not inflicting unnecessary harm and death toward nonhuman animals, e.g. you are probably opposed to animal abuse and would hopefully step in if you saw someone trying to abuse and kill a dog. You only need to be consistent in this principle, and stop paying people for engaging in completely unnecessary industrialized animal abuse and exploitation to produce animal foods.

I also recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/#.Udrxm21RfO4

As for your appeal to nature-argument for consuming animal products, I recommend you to read this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/no-its-not-natural/#.Udr6WG1RfO4
I disagree with the statement that we are omnivores (biologically we are not):
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/search?q=herbivores&max-results=20&by-date=true

http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/debunking-paleo-diet-paleolithic-diet.html
Even if we biologically were omnivores, it wouldn’t morally justify the consumption of animal foods, just like that our ability of engaging in engaging in violence and discrimination against other humans justify this behavior.

You wrote: “the rejection of man-made moral codes means the rejection of all love and compassion. But in so many cases, morals and compassion are themselves in conflict.”

It depends on whether you live according to your beliefs or not. Not standing up against violence and discrimination, or engaging in violence and discrimination, makes this world into a world of less love and compassion.

I argue that we humans do share the moral intuition that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon other beings. Almost everyone in this world argue that humans have a moral value, and that this means that we have moral obligations in terms of how we behave against each other, including that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary harm and death against other humans. Many people discriminate based on irrelevant criteria against other people and claim that we don’t have certain moral obligations to other people. However this doesn’t negate that we humans have a shared moral intuition. These instances only describe cultural prejudice that people adopt through cultural indoctrination. People of all cultures are claiming that we have moral obligations against other sentient beings, with the capacity of feeling suffering, including the obligation not to inflict unnecessary suffering upon them. Sometimes because of cultural prejudice, some people are irrationally excluded from some people’s moral concern. I argue that our moral intuition is not to inflict unnecessary harm and death upon anyone that are sentient and can be harmed. Sometimes people use irrational arguments to exclude people from this principle, either by claiming that the harm is necessary, or by using other irrational arguments (appealing to ‘tradition’, supposedly ‘natural order’, e.g. of god), and people become convinced to this arguments by cultural indoctrination. The same is true of speciecism. People use irrational arguments to exclude other species from their moral concern.

The moral intuition of our population, whom recognizes that animals are sentient and able to feel suffering, is clearly that we shouldn’t inflict them any unnecessary suffering. This is e.g. why there was such a public outcry against Michael Vick: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

“In fact, in the case of small local farmers and free range farmers, humans are more compassionate in killing than any other species.”

Many of the farmers you refer to, e.g. the farmers of ‘free range farmers’ of “free-range chickens” exploit the animals throughout all their lives. You can easily Google this.
It is interesting that refer to the notion of compassionate (‘sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it’).
I think you can theorize as much as you like, but I don’t think you on a deeper plan can convince yourself about that murder and inflicting unnecessary suffering and violence is ‘as good’ as fighting against violence, discrimination, unnecessary suffering and death; and that it is an irrelevant struggle just as fighting for making people prefer apples over bananas. I don’t think that you on a deep level can convince yourself of that morals is just a matter of subjective opinion, I think it is only a theoretical construct that people have in their heads. I think you can feel very satisfied on a deep level as a human being when you are helping people, are fighting against violence and discrimination, and that violence and discrimination never can satisfy yourself on a deep level.

You wrote: “And, by the way, the imposition of one person/group’s morality on other people (speaking of Nazis) has created a lot more suffering and violence and apathy in the world (all those that stand and watch) than amorality, which has never been popular enough to create nearly as much harm as you seem to think.”

More accurately you should say that the imposition of discrimination and unnecessary violence based on irrelevant criteria has created a lot of suffering, violence and apathy. The Nazism prevailed because that so many stood indifferent and silent against this discrimination. Your view that ‘morals are subjective’ is giving people a pass from standing up against discrimination and violence, and it may even encourage them to participate in such, since they can comfort themselves with the view that there is no such thing as unjust discrimination, violence and injustice.

----------

Further discussion:

“remember, you are the one trying to convince me to change my behavior, while i have no interest in changing yours. that being the case, where does the burden of proof truly lie?”

Where does the burden of proof lie – on a person being racist or a person trying to convince someone to reject racism?
Where does the burden of proof lie – on a person murdering others or a person trying to convince someone to stop murdering persons?

You are claiming that I should prove my claim of whether there is such thing as an objective moral. It is impossible to prove such a claim, and it is impossible to prove your claim that morals are subjective.

“when i say morality is a matter of opinion because it is unproven, i am not merely giving my opinion, but simply following the definition of the word "opinion'. anything not back by fact is opinion, that's simply the definition of the word. and the conflicting moralities throughout culture and history, i consider evidence of subjectivity.”

It isn’t. Cultural indoctrination is very powerful.

We all know this from our era in which many are influenced by the discrimination and violence of speciecism and sexism. People claim that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, but yet they daily do it through their daily meals. People are living in a way that contradicts their moral intuition.

It is also very possible to severely damage our moral intuition. This is what people are doing when they are excluding human animals and nonhuman animals from their moral concern, and is starting to exploit, harm and kill them. The more you participate of your exploitation, the more you destroy your moral intuition.

If you are part of a culture where you have a tradition of exploiting say other people groups or other species, and you do this on a regular basis, e.g. at every meal, you lose a lot of your love, compassion and inner intuition of what is morally right and wrong.

So you will find cultures in which exploitation of other people groups and species are celebrated, you will find cultures in exploitation based on sexism, heterosexism, ageism and racism are celebrated and are the norm, and you will find cultures with various other forms of discrimination and violence.

But in no way does this prove that morals are subjective.

Speaking of cultural indoctrination, violence and injustices, I also recommend this article:
Why does many people abuse humans, dogs, cats and other animals?:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/why-does-many-people-abuse-humans-dogs.html

Vegan reply to: Is there a moral difference between eating animals compared to animal abuse/dog fighting

First of all, read this article:
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

As for the comparison with dog-fights:
The bottom line is clear: we all know that our meat involves suffering and killing. No one doubts that. So it’s not really even that those who consume animals don’t know about the suffering. Of course they do. Yes, there is a psychological difference between Michael Vick and someone who just consumes animal products and would never kill an animal herself, but that is a psychological difference, not a moral one.

From all accounts, Vicks treated his dogs in an appalling way. There is no doubt that many of them suffered a great deal. But frankly, the animals whose bodies many of us will eat tonight at dinner suffered every bit as much, if not a great deal more. Similarly, many people who consume meat object to hunting. When we ask them why they object given that they eat meat, dairy, eggs, etc., they often reply, “Because there’s something worse about killing the animal yourself. I would never be able to look at an animal and just shoot it with a bullet or an arrow.”

Again, that response identifies a psychological fact; not anything that is morally relevant. Indeed, the animal who is raised and killed to make the hamburger probably had, on balance, a much worse life than the animal killed by the hunter. So, although killing the animal in both situations is not necessary, if there is any difference between these two situations, it is that the former is actually worse because it involves more suffering.”

 Painless killing doesn’t occur of animals that are consumed for food. But it is still morally wrong. Why painlessly killing an animal for food harms an animal and is unethical:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html

Also read this: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/being-vegan-is-not-personal-choice-it.html

Vegan reply to: 'Don't we have to solve human right issues before solving animal rights issues"?

But…Don’t we have to solve

human rights issues first?

 

“This is a frequently heard “But.” We explain the reasons why we cannot justify consuming animal products and someone asks, “Yes but what about

the problem of battered women?” This is no different than discussing the problem of the inadequate response of the legal system to the problem of battered women, only to have someone respond, “But what about the problem of pedophilia?” There is always something else that could be addressed! And we note that when we ask people who ask this question what they are doing to address human rights issues that they claim are more important than the issue of animal exploitation on which we

are working, nine times out of ten, the answer is usually that they aren’t doing anything. But in the event that you are one of those people who really is concerned about and devoting time, money, or energy to human rights problems, we want to explore this “But” further.

 

There is, of course, implicit in this question the notion that humans matter more in a moral sense than do animals and so we should be focusing on human problems and not animal problems. As we stated at the outset, we aren’t going to challenge

the conventional wisdom that although animals matter morally, humans matter more. [My comment: The authors don’t believe this is the case, but this is a notion that they don’t refute in this book, but in other books.] Yet this “But” still goes nowhere.

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 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 are less important.

 

It is our moral obligation to not inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon non-human animals, i.e. go vegan. I recommend you to read the article and linked pages on this website:

Vegan/strict vegetarian reply to 'Does the world has enough arable farmland to provide adequate nutrition for 7 billion people'?

In USA alone 800 million People could be fed by the food that 'livestock' is fed with today:

'From one ecologist's perspective, the American system of farming grain-fed livestock consumes resources far out of proportion to the yield, accelerates soil erosion, affects world food supply and will be changing in the future.

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.
Quote:  
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

More articles on the same topic:

Is a vegan diet sustainable in colder countries, Sweden ,Norway, etc?

Cause of the injustices in Bangladesh, e.g. in garment factories, and the solution to end poverty and starvation

For references:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf
http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf?sfvrsn=0
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/
http://www.ncifap.org/issues/environment/

----
More thoughts:
PaulYork AnimalRights Dustin, if you look at the most thorough scientific report on the subject, Livestock's Long Shadow, which is online, it reveals that 11x more arable land and water is use to grow feedcrops to produce meat than a comparable amount of veggies -- meaning that we can feed many times more people by switching to a plant-based diet. It could solve world hunger easily, but all those resources are being wasted to produce a relatively small amount of food, at great expense to the environment and human health -- so meat-eating is wasteful and elitist. Then there is the fact that it is #1 cause of increased risk of pandemic disease, that could wipe humanity out. To eat animals is to be against humanity and human rights because of health, global warming, water waste, pandemic disease, world hunger. From a purely humanistic perspective it is a terrible crime. That is why the IPCC and UN both strongly recommend elimination of meat from human diets, and plant-based protein instead.

-------------

Vegan/strict vegetarian reply to 'Doesn't God want us to eat animals'

Vegans are claiming it is wrong to inflict unnecssary suffering and death, and thus we can't justify consuming animals, since we can live and thrive on a vegan diet.

"Even if you believe that you have a soul and animals don’t, and that we ought to prefer the interests of a human in any situation in which we must choose— that is, in any situation of legitimate conflict— that gets us right back to the fact that when you are deciding what to eat tonight , there is no conflict. There is only a choice. If you choose the animal product, you are participating in suffering and death in the absence of any sort of conflict or compulsion. Your only justification is that you enjoy consuming animal products or that it is more convenient for you to do so.

Think about it this way. Imagine that Michael Vick were to say that dog fighting was okay because dogs don’t have souls. Would you buy that? Imagine that Vick says God wants us to fight dogs because they don’t have souls. Would you buy that? You would respond to Vick that God’s creating us in God’s image means that in situations of conflict between human and nonhumans, we ought to protect the human interest over the animal interest. So in the situation in which a person is in a true emergency situation , such as being in a situation where she is starving to death with no plant foods to eat, it would make sense for a religious person to say that God wants her to kill and eat an animal and that she ought to do so. But saying that God wants us to eat animal foods when we are not in that sort of emergency situation is no different from saying that God wants us to fight dogs. If you would find the latter to be objectionable—outrageous perhaps— you should find the former so as well.

Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 569-570). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.
Quote: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

There is no ethical justification at all of taking the life of a sentient being: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Vegan reply to 'We are at top of the food chain, thus we should eat meat'

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.