Non-violence, no unnecessary harm and death towards animals = veganism

ADVENTURES IN RATIONAL THINKING

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
www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

There is no "humane" way of killing an animal/no "humane" slaughter

My reply to Lauren McGrath-Esler,
Even if you are allergic to many plant foods, there are still many plant foods that you can eat, and you can get all the nutrition that you need from plant foods. I recommend you to study this page: http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_allergic.html

You can also contact a vegan nutritionist.
“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)

You think that you can kill an animal “humanely”. You can’t. You can’t kill a healty animal "humanely", since the animal has a desire and interest to live her/his life and an interest of not being killed by humans. This is why painlessly killing a healthy animal is morally wrong: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html

The slaughterhouses in Australia don’t kill the animals painlessly. There is no such slaughterhouse. Visit them and you will see. But even if there was, killing an healthy animal for the "pleasure"/convenience of animal foods would not be morally justified.
This is why it is morally wrong to kill animals for food:
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.

What do you say?

The animal cruelty involved in eating a Big mac from Mc Donalds

My comment to a friend who wrote about eating a 'Big mac':
You can all easily Google ‘cruelty in Mc Donalds’ to find out what cruelty the animals go through to become a ‘Big Mac’. And there is no “humane way” to produce animal products, the animals involve always go through suffering – there are just different degrees to the unnecessary suffering involved.

I think the core of the issue is that people don’t see an animal and what suffering they are causing when they are eating a Big mac or any other animal foods. But it is our moral obligation to the animals to not inflict unnecessary suffering, we all agree with this, so thus we all should study what the animals are going through, so that we stop seeing dead animals and their secretions as ‘food’, but see suffering and death each time we look upon an animal product.
I don’t see anything good when I see an animal product, I don’t miss the taste that I enjoyed for almost 28 years as a non-vegan, I only see dead animals that were inflicted unnecessary suffering and death to satisfy someone’s palate pleasure /convenience of animal foods.

I think it is time that we all act upon our moral intuition, and start to eat as we care of the animals. They are defenseless against us, and we must live up to our moral obligation of stopping exploiting them and inflicting them unnecessary suffering for food. We must start acting like we care, and like they matter more than a frivolous taste experience'/convenience!!

Vegan reply to 'Vegans avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities'

My reply to Kenneth, covering also the issue 'I am not a vegan/strict vegetarian because that human rights are more important than animal rights'

I think that everyone understand the moral difference between uprooting a plant and killing an animal. If we saw someone abusing an animal we would step in and protect the animal, if someone is stepping on, or cutting grass, or cutting down a tree, we don’t believe this is harming any sentient being.

Learn more in this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/#.UciBjJxW6nk
The people who still believe that plants are sentient, can eat of the seeds and the fruits without uprooting any plant.
You will find further reading here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/

Eating animals is morally wrong, because it inflicts unnecessary suffering and death upon sentient beings. You already agree with the premise that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. The only reason that you don’t apply this to eating is because of cultural indoctrination.
“You can sit in a coffeehouse and avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities that are ongoing”
I do certainly not ignore other problems of our society. Since I became a vegan I have actually become more aware of all the violence and discrimination in our society and I do more to fight against it compared to before.
There is no contradiction between fighting for human rights and fighting for animal rights. You go vegan and you choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, you substitute your animal products with a vegan diet, etc. It is very easy. You can continue to fight for human rights. A vegan lifestyle is not limiting, and it is a necessity for an ethical lifestyle, and it is our moral obligation to the nonhuman animals.

Furthermore, there is a big interconnection between all the violence and discrimination in our society: 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

Furthermore, while I believe that it is immoral to consume animal products, I do not judge peoples intentions and their character. For me it took almost 28 years to realize that the necessity and our moral obligation to be a vegan, and that consuming is unethical.

I don’t need a biological degree to understand that it is unethical to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals; and I will certainly not accept justifications such as ‘other animals eats animals and we are at the top of the food chain’, since both those arguments are easily refutable.
Cheers and best wishes
-------------
This is a reply to:
"Anders, aside from photosynthesizing plants and bacteria, all life exists by consuming other life - has this ever occurred to you? A vegan also is extinguishing life in order to survive. I am sure you are a nice fellow but do you even have an operational definition of the word 'moral'? And then once you have that you decide to focus on carnivores and omnivores as entire groups as being 'immoral'? That must feel very good and certainly is convenient! You can sit in a coffeehouse and avoid the real problems of society - and the much more significant atrocities that are ongoing - all the while feeling comfortable in your moral superiority! Hooray for you! While you're sitting there feeling so good, maybe take the time and get a biology degree, which is literally the study of life itself, and see how the chain of life works. Cheers and best wishes."

Why eating meat, milk and other animal products is causing animals unnecessary suffering and death

You wrote: “ I feel with a small amount of meat, eggs, vegetables, grains and fruits i still have a wide variety in food, and a balanced diet. “

I recommend you to watch: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ; Eggs are unhealthy: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2005nl/march/050300pueastereggs.htm

A starch-based diet without animal products is very healthy: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/starch_solution.html

“So let’s apply the analysis that we all agreed was uncontroversial to using animals for food: have we got a good reason? Is there any necessity involved? The short answer: no. But wait! Don’t we need to eat animals and animal products to be healthy? No. No one maintains that it’s medically necessary to eat animal foods. The extremely conservative Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, formerly the American Dietetic Association, has stated: 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. [1] And mainstream physicians are, with increasing frequency, pointing out that animal products are actually detrimental to human health. We could now embark on a long discussion of the many studies that show that animal products are harming our health but we don’t need to because whether or not you agree that consuming animal foods is detrimental, there is certainly no argument that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. That is , even if we do not believe that we will be more healthy if we eat a sensible vegan diet, we cannot reasonably believe we will be less healthy.”

Quote from: Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Location 195). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

You are claiming that you have a necessity for eating animal products, that it doesn't constitute 'unnecessary suffering' as dog fighting does, if I understand you correctly. This isn't correct. You don’t have any necessity. You will be even healthier eating a vegan diet. So if you continue to consume animal products you do it despite that you have any necessity for it. And hurting and killing animals despite the lack of necessity is unethical.

What do you say?

Is there a moral difference between killing animals for 'enjoyment', or killing and eating animals for taste/'pleasure'?

Almost everyone in this world, including most people belonging to all various religions, believe that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary harming on animals, yet how can we approve of the following?

Gary Francione: I mean that our thinking about animals is very confused. On one hand, we claim to regard animals as members of the moral community. We claim to embrace a moral and legal obligation not to inflict “unnecessary” suffering or death on animals. We can, of course, debate the meaning of “necessity,” but whatever it means, it must rule out suffering and death imposed for reasons of human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. If it does not do so, then the exception would completely swallow the moral rule.
The problem is that 99.99% of our animal use cannot be justified by anything but human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, we kill more than 12 billion land animals every year in the United States alone for food. No one maintains that it is necessary to eat animals to lead an optimally healthy lifestyle and an increasing number of mainstream health care professionals tell us that animal foods are detrimental to our health. Animal agriculture is a disaster for the environment because it involves a most inefficient use of natural resources and creates water pollution, soil erosion, and greenhouse gasses. The only justification that we have for the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on these billions of animals is that we enjoy eating animal foods, or that it is convenient to do so, or that it is just plain habit.

“There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products.”
I recommend this article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights
I also recommend this wonderful lecture: http://vimeo.com/17538152
Animal products are very bad for our health and causes many diseases: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

That 'meat tastes good' does not justify us killing and hurting animals

Our ancestors diet was primarily plant based:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srkd-irmrC0

[See my notes from the lecture: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/det-ar-en-myt-att-manniskans-forfader.html ]

In any instance, there is no justification to kill and hurt another being for a "taste experience", regardless of whether it is a human, cat, dog, cow or any other animal.

Please consider this:
"
Gary Francione: I mean that our thinking about animals is very confused. On one hand, we claim to regard animals as members of the moral community. We claim to embrace a moral and legal obligation not to inflict “unnecessary” suffering or death on animals. We can, of course, debate the meaning of “necessity,” but whatever it means, it must rule out suffering and death imposed for reasons of human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. If it does not do so, then the exception would completely swallow the moral rule.
The problem is that 99.99% of our animal use cannot be justified by anything but human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, we kill more than 12 billion land animals every year in the United States alone for food. No one maintains that it is necessary to eat animals to lead an optimally healthy lifestyle and an increasing number of mainstream health care professionals tell us that animal foods are detrimental to our health. Animal agriculture is a disaster for the environment because it involves a most inefficient use of natural resources and creates water pollution, soil erosion, and greenhouse gasses. The only justification that we have for the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on these billions of animals is that we enjoy eating animal foods, or that it is convenient to do so, or that it is just plain habit.
We regard some animals—our “pets”—as members of our families. We see them as nonhuman persons. We love them and they love us back. We are not in any way speaking or thinking anthropomorphically when we say that dogs and cats are sentient beings with distinct personalities. That is simply a matter of fact. We have no doubt that they have an interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. We grieve when they die. But our dogs and cats are no different from the animals whose bodies we eat or who are used to produce dairy and eggs. We love some animals; we stick forks into others. That is what I mean by “moral schizophrenia.”"
http://cup.columbia.edu/static/interview-gary-francione