But vegans eat almonds and bees are exploited to produce these

It is correct that all monocultures involves the harming of sentient beings, e.g. killing of insects. That's why it is a moral imperative for us to do our best to either start veganic gardening ourselves, or buy such food: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html
Dumpster diving vegetables, etc. is also a good option.


But there is a moral difference between:
1. Using and exploiting a nonhuman animal as a resource and cattle property, or paying someone to do this with the only purpose of getting their product;
2. Having no alternative, paying an ordinary monoculture-farmer to buy vegetables; and this farmer is unfortunately - and despite that we abhor it, don't support it and don't want him to do it - exploiting other sentient beings in the production process. They are responsible for it. We choose to buy this produce because if we didn't we would starve to death.


Number 2 wouldn't occur in a vegan world, since we wouldn't exploit animals to produce our food. We would use vegan permaculture/veganic gardening. It only occurs because of that people justify exploiting animals for their pleasure, convenience, etc. Thus, assuming that we are doing our best to be able to get produce from veganic gardening, do dumpster diving, etc. we really don't have any alternative other than buying the monoculture-produce or we will starve to death.
The exploitation that occurs is due to the exploitation of nonhumans that every non-vegan participates in.


-------
This is a reply to the following:

Yesterday, my non-vegan «flexitarian» husband, who is a heavy milk drinker, wrote the following to me (after we had an argument about his refusal to give up milk). I would like to know what you would answer to something like that:

«Just watched the bee documentary "More Than Honey." Well done and pretty interesting. I know that vegans don't do honey because it's derived from an exploitative process, however the nectar acquisition phase is part of a more exploitative process. Due to declining bee populations around the world and here in the US, most of the pollination that occurs with fruit and nut growers is the result of "rented" bees. How do vegans reconcile eating almonds (nearly all of which are produced by this process) or tree fruit when these products are only made possible through forced bee labor?»

Veganism, rights of animals, rights of women, pornography

Quote from https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
An email I received: "I am a vegan but I have to confess that I like to look at porn. I read something where you said that porn was a form of violence. But if I don't hurt anyone or do anything wrong, what's the harm and why is it violence?"

My reply: I assume you are a vegan because you have recognized that it's morally wrong to consume nonhumans. Well, pornography is nothing more than the consumption of other humans; personhood is erased or ignored and only body parts are present. Pornography commodifies others. This is especially a problem with porn involving women because it's a patriarchal society that encourages men to think about women as commodities anyway.

I still remember that when, in 1984, I made this analogy (consuming animals and consuming women) to my students, many thought it was really far out. (And some feminists, notably Marti Kheel, were already talking about these issues back then and she must have really gotten criticized for being out there!) Many still think that the analogy does not work but I disagree. Our thinking of other humans as non-persons, as things, starts, as you might guess, in our heads. And I simply cannot believe that consuming pornography does not lead to thinking of others as things and that thinking of others as things does not lead to treating them as things even if you don't actually assault them. Remember, all physical violence starts in the mind.

Please understand that I am not in favor of government censorship. Governments always do a bad job when they start trying to determine what we can read or view. My point is that if we care about equality and nonviolence, we should not consume pornography. It's a moral point, not a legal one.



----------Some comments:



Deborah Garland Mr. F., I'm pleased that you are addressing this so clearly & consistently. There is no level playing field in patriarchy ~ the game is rigged, the deck is stacked, the dice are loaded. Those sentient beings with less voice socially & economically suffer greatly. Vegan abolitionism appears to be a very effective tool for creating needful social change, so that all beings have the opportunity to live free of suffering, free of being the property of another. This is not Pollyanna, & it is possible. Thank you for standing up & sharing this patiently, politely, & clearly on your Facebook Page. I appreciate it very much! 

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Caitlin Ahrens: First, women without economic dependence on men are the exception and not even they have the same sort of choice that most men have. Second, nothing is "innate" about patriarchy. We were gathers before we were hunters. We know about patriarchies and not matriarchies because men write histories. Third, poverty is a problem for everyone. But women who are poor have poverty and sex to deal with, unless they are women of color, in which case they have that too.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Here's an article about Gail Dines' work that explores why porn threatens our relationships: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

The truth about the porn industry

www.guardian.co.uk

Gail Dines, the author of an explosive new book about the sex industry, on why pornography has never been a greater threat to our relationships

33 minutes ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Lavender Blue: Yes, I agree with the Adams quote you post. I liked "The Sexual Politics of Meat" in many respects. But as I say, the eating animals/consuming women idea was certainly not new with that book and at least several of us (female and male) were talking about this much earlier. Also, and this is not to lay the blame at Adams' door, but Feminists for Animal Rights was pretty late to the party in terms of stepping up and criticizing the sexism in the movement that was starting in the late 1980s. I am not saying that they could have stopped that trend if they had joined those of us who were taking positions against sexism right from the outset, but we may have a better chance. In any event, sexism is a feature of the "movement" these days and it is vile, reactionary nonsense not befitting a movement for social justice. But, in reality, the animal "movement" as it presently stands has nothing to do with social justice. Nothing whatsoever.

Moral realism-reponse to ' absolute morality is unproven is what makes it a matter of opinion”'

“what i am claiming is that the very fact that absolute morality is unproven is what makes it a matter of opinion”

Okay,

I disagree.

Just because it is impossible to prove moral notions in a scientific way doesn’t imply that there is no such thing as objective moral truths.

Here are some quotes that I do agree with:

There is a whole tradition of secular moral realism that does not depend on religious belief. For example, see Huemer's book, "Ethical Intuitionism." If you are telling me that I need to believe in God to believe that the statement, "The Holocaust was morally wrong," is true, I could not disagree more.

We all share certain moral intuitions, such as: it is wrong to cause suffering/death without a good reason. That moral principle is a true moral principle. And in response to anyone who says, "well the truth of that principle can be doubted," I reply: why let your skepticism stop there? You can doubt everything. If doubtability is the test, then no proposition can ever be true in an "objective" sense.

-----------

“Moral realism is not the view that moral truths are constructed, or made true, as a result of what people value morally; rather, moral truths exist independently of any perspective, including ideal perspectives.”

“Science tells us that we ought to believe what the evidence appears to show. That is itself a normative claim. But let’s assume that we ought to believe what the evidence shows. What counts as evidence? The answer is that certain evidence, which is consistent with the assumptions of the scientific paradigm, counts, but all other evidence is excluded and ignored. There can be completely different sorts of empiricism (the theory that all knowledge comes from the senses as opposed to being innate). It is incorrect to say that moral realism or all spiritual traditions are unconcerned with evidence or that there is no evidence for them. There is a concern for evidence and there is evidence; it is just not recognized as “scientific” knowledge because science rejects that sort of evidence from the outset. There are many things to measure; science measures only some and even defines how measurement can proceed. Everything else is ignored.”

“The abolitionist philosophy that I have developed certainly relies on rational argument but ultimately rests on a foundation of moral realism. For example, when I state, “it is wrong to inflict suffering on a sentient being without an adequate justification,” I mean that to be a principle that represents a moral fact. From this principle, together with the logical premise that the moral notion is meaningless if an adequate justification can include the pleasure, amusement, or convenience of the person(s) imposing the suffering, I argue rationally to the conclusion that we cannot justify most animal use, however “humane” it might be. (I have other arguments against any animal use that is not ruled out by the “necessity” argument.)

So the theory (or that part of it) rests on logic and rationality, and certain nonmoral facts about animal sentience. But you cannot get to any normative conclusion if you don’t agree with the moral fact that it is wrong to inflict suffering on another sentient being without an adequate justification. If you ask me to “prove” the truth of that moral fact using a framework prescribed by science or in a way that every rational person would be compelled to accept, I can’t. That does not mean that “it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals without an adequate justification” is not a moral fact; it does not mean that no evidence supports it. My views are based on moral intuitions, which involve beliefs that are based in experience, but which cannot be “proved” with the sort of evidence that is used in the prevailing paradigm of science. I would, however, maintain that the truth of the moral intuition, “it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals without an adequate justification,” is self-evident, even though its truth does not rest on observation. “

I recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/new-atheism-and-animal-ethics-some-reflections/#.UdsMjW1RfO4

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

One more post:
You have from the outset taken the position that you will believe that morality is subjective until the opposite can be scientifically be proven, which per definition of the limitations of the scientific paradigm is impossible.

Then you use your position “conveniently” to exploit and harm other animals for trivial ‘palate pleasure’, and to be indifferent of their unnecessary suffering and death. If you care the slightest of nonhuman animals, then the case for veganism is crystal clear, as explained earlier. And as long as you permit people exploiting animals for the “pleasure”/convenience of food, and participate in this yourself, you are a part of the animal abuse (and also guilty of the most horrendous parts of the abuse, which you enable by endorsing the property status of animals), instead of a part of the solution.

For some clarity I recommend: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.Ua0CHpxc18E

It is an objective fact that the property status and domestication of animals is causing them horrendous amounts of suffering, e.g. enabling the industrialized animal abuse depicted in this video: http://www.earthlings.com/

Without the domestication that started 10000 years ago, and that is perpetuated by each non-vegan choice, 58 billion land animals wouldn’t yearly be exploited, many of them living a life of constant torture.
Your position also harms other people, since the animal industry is causing lots of environmental damage, poverty, starvation, etc.: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

Furthermore, the enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook

Regardless of what you believe about moral truths, all that it takes to become a vegan is love and compassion, caring more about the animals, their interests of not suffering and interest of continued existence, than frivolous ‘taste experience’/convenience/social peer pressure.

Naturally any vegan who cares about animal and human rights, and who is understanding that one is complicit in the exploitation if one is not educating people participating in animal exploitation, and who is understanding how efficient education is in order to change people's mindsets and actions, will try to educate you about their views. You will regard it as "imposing beliefs", and the vegan will regard it as their moral obligation. You should consider that your temporary frustration is nothing compared to the suffering of the victims (the animals) that we are trying to protect and defend.

I think this will be my last reply. Thanks for the discussion!

Vegan reply to 'Morality is a matter of opinion'

“Morality is a matter of opinion”

You are claiming that morals are subjective, just like some may prefer tomatoes over cucumber.

Basically you are saying that:
“It isn’t morally wrong to murder. Rape isn’t morally wrong. Animal abuse isn’t morally wrong. Racism isn’t morally wrong. Nazism isn’t morally wrong. Sexism isn’t morally wrong. Heterosexism isn’t morally wrong. Other kinds of abuse, violence and discrimination aren’t morally wrong.”

You are saying that some prefer to murder other people and some prefer not to murder other people, but this preference is as relevant as is whether someone prefers tomatoes over cucumber.
You are saying that some prefer to be violent and discriminate based on irrelevant criteria, and some people prefer to show love, empathy, nonviolence and compassion; but you are saying that this fundamental difference is just a matter of opinion, e.g. some people prefer bananas over apples, or football over hockey.

I think this notion is completely mistaken and inherently immoral.
Basically, since you say that all of these issues are just a matter of opinion, you are also encouraging that it is okay to stand silent when people are being oppressed by people who adhere to sexism, racism, nazism, heterosexism, etcetera. Standing silent is being complicit with moral transgressions, discrimination and violence.

Our moral intuition says that it is morally wrong to cause other individuals unnecessary suffering and death – both humans and nonhumans. I strongly believe we should follow our moral intuition which leads to more love, compassion, empathy and nonviolence, instead of the theoretical construct and opinion that “moral is a matter of opinion” which only leads to more suffering, harm, violence and apathy in this world.

I recommend this article about moral realism: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/new-atheism-and-animal-ethics-some-reflections/
If we follow our moral intuition, and reason clearly about our moral obligations based on this, it leads us to fight against all violence and discrimination, including speciecism: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/human-and-nonhuman-rights-as-inextricably-intertwined-in-a-nutshell/#.UdrhcG1RfO4
And thus if we embrace our moral intuition that it is morally wrong to inflict animals unnecessary suffering and death, we will embrace veganism and go vegan. You will find further reading about this here: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

Ethics: Love animals and eating animals - a moral oxymoron

Are you aware that there is as much suffering for the animal, caused by a glass of milk or for an egg, as there is for a steak of meat?: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/organic-milk-cheese-ice-cream-sour.html
Here are some other good, tasty recipes on the blog of my wife: http://veganviking.blogspot.com/

A vegan lifestyle is not a sacrifice, it is a joy.
As for taste, for me the desire of animal products went away when I realized that it is unethical to kill another sentient being for palatable pleasure. Dr. Neal Banard says: "You will find that your taste buds have a memory of about 3 weeks."

I don’t agree with the food chain-argument. Here is my reply to it: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html
Can you explain to me, how would having the possibility to kill all other sentient beings on this planet justify us to inflict unnecessary suffering upon another being?

Why do you look upon omnivores as your role models, instead of herbivores – when you refer to the “food chain”-argument. We do have the anatomy of an herbivore, and we do have a moral concern for the animals. You wouldn’t for example kill a dog. You just have to be consistent and extend this same moral concern for all animals.
We do certainly have the choice to abstain from killing and eating animals for food. So when we choose to eat animal products, we act despite the lack of “necessity”. And doing so we are acting in contradiction to our moral belief which states that dog fighting and dog abuse is morally wrong, because it inflicts unnecessary suffering upon animals.

I highly recommend this book, ‘Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog by Professor Gary Francione?
‘: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/#.Ua5RpJxc18E

It really helps in ones understanding.