Ethical Veganism and American Society: Criticisms, Ideology, and Methodology
//
Main:
America is what ethical vegans would call a speciesist society. This speciesism is their primary criticism of American culture; the root of a multitude of other problems. It is the same irrational discrimination used in racism and sexism, but applied to animals. This, it is reasoned, is the only possible explanation for why society could justify sanctioning the murder of so many living creatures, let alone justify devouring the flesh of those creatures’ corpses. As Alice Walker, the author of the Color Purple, observes, “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites or women made for men.” It is as arrogant and pretentious to project a purpose onto other species as it is to project one onto another race or the other sex. Furthermore, the distinction between human and beast is as arbitrary and circumstantial as the distinction between man and woman or any of the various races. The comparison holds true, so it serves to reason that everything else transitions along with that as soon as it is acknowledged that the contexts are the same. Peter Singer observes in his book titled Animal Liberation, “We have seen how, in violation of the fundamental moral principle of equality of consideration of interests that ought to govern our relations with all beings, humans inflict suffering on nonhumans for trivial purposes …”. It is easily apparent from video footage of slaughterhouse practices how this violation occurs on a daily basis throughout the country. These methods are trivial for two reasons; the first is that it makes far more economic sense to use the land being used to provide food used by the meat and dairy industries in feeding animals raised for slaughter for harvesting, instead, food for human beings (indeed, all of the minerals and nutrients provided for a human diet by animal flesh and dairy products come from the food those animals eat) and the second is the sheer amount of “suffering to nonhumans” inflicted during the course of these procedures. Live animals being strung from the ceiling and having their still breathing throats cut, dismemberment of fully conscious animals, forced and artificial insemination for selective breeding and milk-production, and extremely poor living conditions are just some examples of practices that are accepted as commonplace in the meat and dairy industries which not only cause exceptional suffering by even the most conservative use of the word, but serve no other purpose than to increase the already sizeable profit margins of the meat and dairy corporations.
Singer’s words are also applicable to most animal research; very little valuable information garnered from experimenting on and studying animals can be transitioned to human beings, making them indeed trivial. Supposing that research on animals is being performed for the intended benefit of humans and not other animals (little research is done toward the benefit of animals), then monkeys, rats, beagles, et cetera are suffering and dying without reason. As stated by Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, medical doctor and the late Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, “The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work. It has no scientific value. One cannot extrapolate the results of animal research to human beings, and every good scientist knows that.” Much of the research is trivial in its sheer superficiality; cosmetics research so that rich old women can look slightly less old or to find out just what would happen if someone were to get an obscene amount of make-up in their eye, for example. And, of course, vivisection is on the very limit of cruelty by anyone’s definition of the word, requiring that living, conscious animals be dissected and kept alive in order to study their organs while they are still functioning. Of course, the animal’s vocal chords are cut so that its screams cannot be heard, it’s strapped down so that it can’t struggle, and its head is covered so that the look of sheer pain and terror cannot be seen, so it’s possible to deny the animal its emotional and cognitive worth, ignoring that it could just as easily be a human being instead (and was, at the hands of Josef Mengele, who’s research is considered taboo and forbidden in the scientific community on the moral basis of cruelty and is described as having “dubious scientific value”) given the right circumstances. Indeed, as Samuel Clemens, better known as the American satirist Mark Twain, said on vivisection “I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race. The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.” None of these atrocities could take place without the ideological influence of speciesism permeating through our everyday life (indeed, vegans are viewed as curious deviants by the majority of society).
Also, as observed by Gary Yourofsky, a prominent veganism and animal rights activist and founder of the organization ADAPTT (an acronym for “Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow”), humans are biological herbivores; that we must force our bodies to adapt to the consumption of meat and dairy (he mentioned that he’s never heard of a child being raised vegan who throws up as a baby). The most valid of his arguments attesting to the natural inclination of human diet is that “the length of human and other herbivore intestines falls somewhere between eight and thirteen times the bodies' length” while “the length of carnivore and omnivore intestines is only three to six times their bodies' length”. This short length of the intestinal track “allows rotting animal flesh, animal protein, cholesterol and saturated fat to pass through quickly”. He then asserts that this is why “it's impossible for any real carnivore or omnivore to get clogged arteries”. Clogged arteries are, of course, responsible for causing heart disease, which is the number one killer of women. Eliminating cholesterol and saturated animal fat from the human diet drastically brings down the likelihood of heart disease, heart attacks, diabetes, strokes, and a plethora of other health problems. To phrase it another way, Dr. William Roberts, a professor at Baylor University (the executive director of the Baylor Cardiovascular Institute) and editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology, notes “Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh - which contains cholesterol and saturated fat - was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores.” Gary Yourofsky also states, “Humans and other herbivores have carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva, meaning our bodies were created for fruits and vegetables. Animal products have no complex carbohydrates, which is why carnivores and omnivores lack carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva.”, which further supports the assertion that humans are “natural herbivores”. Dairy products are likewise detrimental to a human body. Every human on the planet is, to one degree or another, lactose intolerant. This is why foods heavy in dairy are considered “rich”, and why the human body gets sick and rejects such rich foods easily. Milk, even, contributes more to osteoporosis than it does anything against it; calcium is taken from your bones to neutralize the acid present in milk (which does have a good amount of calcium, just not enough to neutralize itself). The only two groups of people in the world in which osteoporosis is virtually unknown are Southern Asians (Vietnamese and Cambodians, who are genetically completely lactose intolerant) and vegans (who are willingly completely lactose intolerant). Advocates of meat and dairy point out that there is nutritional value in these foods; that meat and dairy provide things the human body needs to survive. These nutrients, however, came from the food being eaten by the animals in the two industries and, thus, are available elsewhere.
Thus America is accepting a diet against rational judgment and refusing to acknowledge the parallel that speciesism is to racism and sexism. If a vegan diet was adopted, then Americans would be far healthier. More importantly, billions of animals wouldn’t be senselessly slaughtered in the name of an archaic rationale that has been proven time and time again to be morally wrong by the standards of American justice and equity. Applying these ethics on a societal basis rather than simply a dietary one, arbitrary and useless animal research would be eliminated as well as any individual cruelty people inflict (albeit unintentionally or misguidedly) on animals under their “authority”. The hypocrisy was acknowledged and overturned in the instance of slavery and institutionalized racism, though racism on an individual basis still exists. The hypocrisy was acknowledged and overturned in the instance of institutionalized sexism, though individual misogyny and chauvinism still exist. It is only reasonable, then, that the hypocrisy be recognized and overturned in the instance of institutionalized speciesism, particularly due to the relative severity of the suffering and death this hypocrisy has caused and is caused compared to racism and sexism. While it is ingrained in our society, so were slavery and the concepts of the inferiority and inherent savagery of blacks, all of which were or are being dealt with as soon as society recognized the contradiction in its standards, rationally and rightly placing ideological principle over mere convenience. Mahatma Gandhi believed that “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”. If this is true, then Americans must recognize the individual rights and freedoms of animals and cease to deny and ignore the considerations and interests animals if, truly, the betterment of society is desired. As Milan Kundera, the author of The Unbearable Lightness of Being, states, “Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test which lies deeply buried from view, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.” This moral test is a constant evaluation of our actions, only through which a better society, with healthier individuals and far, far less suffering and arbitrary cruelty, can be achieved.
The primary tactic advocated by ethical vegans to achieve this better society is, as with the civil rights and feminist movements prior to the anti-speciesist movement, civil disobedience. The logic is, if a law is unjust, then it is unjust to obey that law, making it morally superior to directly oppose injustice rather than indifferently tolerate it, let alone exploiting it. As Elie Wiesel, a Nazi concentration camp survivor, advocates, “Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” What applies in one instance must apply to all instances that share the context. Or, as phrased by the Animal Liberation Front, “If we are trespassing, then so were the American soldiers who broke down the gates of Hitler's death camps. If we are thieves, then so were the members of The Underground Railroad who freed the slaves from the South. And if we are vandals, then so were those who destroyed forever the gas chambers of Buchanwald and Auschwitz.” Indeed, the reasoning is the same, so the difference lies in an arbitrary and false distinction. Freeing animals from captivity in laboratories, fur and livestock farms, and anywhere else, for that matter, then becomes no different from liberating a woman from a domestically abusive relationship or helping a man from being attacked by an angry mob. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said towards his oppressors, “We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws and abide by the unjust system, because non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”. If the difference between the cruelty performed in labs and under a hangmans tree is just that society willingly turns a blind eye to the former and reciprocates against those individuals performing the latter, does it validate the former? Using ignorance to justify evils sets a dangerous precident.
Another tactic used to advocate ethical veganism is education. “Knowledge should be more than power - it should be obligation.” is a view expressed in the Animal Liberation Front mission statement. It is a view expressed almost verbatim by a plethora of individuals within academia, including scholars, historians, and professors. While this appeal to authority may carry little weight on its own, it can certainly be agreed upon that all individuals must take responsibility for themselves and their own actions. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that all individuals must take responsibility for their inactions as well. The fundamentals of nutrition, the scientific method, and logic all point towards ethical veganism, and thus furthering this understanding facilitates a transitional paradigm between arbitrary societal traditions and rationalism. Video footage and graphic images are also available, preventing claims of ignorance as to the practices of the meat and dairy industries. The free exchange of information allows for this education to promote knowledge and, thus, responsibility. Since a society is a collective of individuals, any individual living in society and not recognizing their obligation to its state of affairs is merely deluding themselves with regards to their contribution to an ideology every bit as oppressive as racism and sexism.
Quote:"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."-Friedrich August Hayek
Main:
America is what ethical vegans would call a speciesist society. This speciesism is their primary criticism of American culture; the root of a multitude of other problems. It is the same irrational discrimination used in racism and sexism, but applied to animals. This, it is reasoned, is the only possible explanation for why society could justify sanctioning the murder of so many living creatures, let alone justify devouring the flesh of those creatures’ corpses. As Alice Walker, the author of the Color Purple, observes, “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites or women made for men.” It is as arrogant and pretentious to project a purpose onto other species as it is to project one onto another race or the other sex. Furthermore, the distinction between human and beast is as arbitrary and circumstantial as the distinction between man and woman or any of the various races. The comparison holds true, so it serves to reason that everything else transitions along with that as soon as it is acknowledged that the contexts are the same. Peter Singer observes in his book titled Animal Liberation, “We have seen how, in violation of the fundamental moral principle of equality of consideration of interests that ought to govern our relations with all beings, humans inflict suffering on nonhumans for trivial purposes …”. It is easily apparent from video footage of slaughterhouse practices how this violation occurs on a daily basis throughout the country. These methods are trivial for two reasons; the first is that it makes far more economic sense to use the land being used to provide food used by the meat and dairy industries in feeding animals raised for slaughter for harvesting, instead, food for human beings (indeed, all of the minerals and nutrients provided for a human diet by animal flesh and dairy products come from the food those animals eat) and the second is the sheer amount of “suffering to nonhumans” inflicted during the course of these procedures. Live animals being strung from the ceiling and having their still breathing throats cut, dismemberment of fully conscious animals, forced and artificial insemination for selective breeding and milk-production, and extremely poor living conditions are just some examples of practices that are accepted as commonplace in the meat and dairy industries which not only cause exceptional suffering by even the most conservative use of the word, but serve no other purpose than to increase the already sizeable profit margins of the meat and dairy corporations.
Singer’s words are also applicable to most animal research; very little valuable information garnered from experimenting on and studying animals can be transitioned to human beings, making them indeed trivial. Supposing that research on animals is being performed for the intended benefit of humans and not other animals (little research is done toward the benefit of animals), then monkeys, rats, beagles, et cetera are suffering and dying without reason. As stated by Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, medical doctor and the late Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, “The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work. It has no scientific value. One cannot extrapolate the results of animal research to human beings, and every good scientist knows that.” Much of the research is trivial in its sheer superficiality; cosmetics research so that rich old women can look slightly less old or to find out just what would happen if someone were to get an obscene amount of make-up in their eye, for example. And, of course, vivisection is on the very limit of cruelty by anyone’s definition of the word, requiring that living, conscious animals be dissected and kept alive in order to study their organs while they are still functioning. Of course, the animal’s vocal chords are cut so that its screams cannot be heard, it’s strapped down so that it can’t struggle, and its head is covered so that the look of sheer pain and terror cannot be seen, so it’s possible to deny the animal its emotional and cognitive worth, ignoring that it could just as easily be a human being instead (and was, at the hands of Josef Mengele, who’s research is considered taboo and forbidden in the scientific community on the moral basis of cruelty and is described as having “dubious scientific value”) given the right circumstances. Indeed, as Samuel Clemens, better known as the American satirist Mark Twain, said on vivisection “I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race. The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.” None of these atrocities could take place without the ideological influence of speciesism permeating through our everyday life (indeed, vegans are viewed as curious deviants by the majority of society).
Also, as observed by Gary Yourofsky, a prominent veganism and animal rights activist and founder of the organization ADAPTT (an acronym for “Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow”), humans are biological herbivores; that we must force our bodies to adapt to the consumption of meat and dairy (he mentioned that he’s never heard of a child being raised vegan who throws up as a baby). The most valid of his arguments attesting to the natural inclination of human diet is that “the length of human and other herbivore intestines falls somewhere between eight and thirteen times the bodies' length” while “the length of carnivore and omnivore intestines is only three to six times their bodies' length”. This short length of the intestinal track “allows rotting animal flesh, animal protein, cholesterol and saturated fat to pass through quickly”. He then asserts that this is why “it's impossible for any real carnivore or omnivore to get clogged arteries”. Clogged arteries are, of course, responsible for causing heart disease, which is the number one killer of women. Eliminating cholesterol and saturated animal fat from the human diet drastically brings down the likelihood of heart disease, heart attacks, diabetes, strokes, and a plethora of other health problems. To phrase it another way, Dr. William Roberts, a professor at Baylor University (the executive director of the Baylor Cardiovascular Institute) and editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology, notes “Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh - which contains cholesterol and saturated fat - was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores.” Gary Yourofsky also states, “Humans and other herbivores have carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva, meaning our bodies were created for fruits and vegetables. Animal products have no complex carbohydrates, which is why carnivores and omnivores lack carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva.”, which further supports the assertion that humans are “natural herbivores”. Dairy products are likewise detrimental to a human body. Every human on the planet is, to one degree or another, lactose intolerant. This is why foods heavy in dairy are considered “rich”, and why the human body gets sick and rejects such rich foods easily. Milk, even, contributes more to osteoporosis than it does anything against it; calcium is taken from your bones to neutralize the acid present in milk (which does have a good amount of calcium, just not enough to neutralize itself). The only two groups of people in the world in which osteoporosis is virtually unknown are Southern Asians (Vietnamese and Cambodians, who are genetically completely lactose intolerant) and vegans (who are willingly completely lactose intolerant). Advocates of meat and dairy point out that there is nutritional value in these foods; that meat and dairy provide things the human body needs to survive. These nutrients, however, came from the food being eaten by the animals in the two industries and, thus, are available elsewhere.
Thus America is accepting a diet against rational judgment and refusing to acknowledge the parallel that speciesism is to racism and sexism. If a vegan diet was adopted, then Americans would be far healthier. More importantly, billions of animals wouldn’t be senselessly slaughtered in the name of an archaic rationale that has been proven time and time again to be morally wrong by the standards of American justice and equity. Applying these ethics on a societal basis rather than simply a dietary one, arbitrary and useless animal research would be eliminated as well as any individual cruelty people inflict (albeit unintentionally or misguidedly) on animals under their “authority”. The hypocrisy was acknowledged and overturned in the instance of slavery and institutionalized racism, though racism on an individual basis still exists. The hypocrisy was acknowledged and overturned in the instance of institutionalized sexism, though individual misogyny and chauvinism still exist. It is only reasonable, then, that the hypocrisy be recognized and overturned in the instance of institutionalized speciesism, particularly due to the relative severity of the suffering and death this hypocrisy has caused and is caused compared to racism and sexism. While it is ingrained in our society, so were slavery and the concepts of the inferiority and inherent savagery of blacks, all of which were or are being dealt with as soon as society recognized the contradiction in its standards, rationally and rightly placing ideological principle over mere convenience. Mahatma Gandhi believed that “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”. If this is true, then Americans must recognize the individual rights and freedoms of animals and cease to deny and ignore the considerations and interests animals if, truly, the betterment of society is desired. As Milan Kundera, the author of The Unbearable Lightness of Being, states, “Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test which lies deeply buried from view, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.” This moral test is a constant evaluation of our actions, only through which a better society, with healthier individuals and far, far less suffering and arbitrary cruelty, can be achieved.
The primary tactic advocated by ethical vegans to achieve this better society is, as with the civil rights and feminist movements prior to the anti-speciesist movement, civil disobedience. The logic is, if a law is unjust, then it is unjust to obey that law, making it morally superior to directly oppose injustice rather than indifferently tolerate it, let alone exploiting it. As Elie Wiesel, a Nazi concentration camp survivor, advocates, “Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” What applies in one instance must apply to all instances that share the context. Or, as phrased by the Animal Liberation Front, “If we are trespassing, then so were the American soldiers who broke down the gates of Hitler's death camps. If we are thieves, then so were the members of The Underground Railroad who freed the slaves from the South. And if we are vandals, then so were those who destroyed forever the gas chambers of Buchanwald and Auschwitz.” Indeed, the reasoning is the same, so the difference lies in an arbitrary and false distinction. Freeing animals from captivity in laboratories, fur and livestock farms, and anywhere else, for that matter, then becomes no different from liberating a woman from a domestically abusive relationship or helping a man from being attacked by an angry mob. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said towards his oppressors, “We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws and abide by the unjust system, because non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”. If the difference between the cruelty performed in labs and under a hangmans tree is just that society willingly turns a blind eye to the former and reciprocates against those individuals performing the latter, does it validate the former? Using ignorance to justify evils sets a dangerous precident.
Another tactic used to advocate ethical veganism is education. “Knowledge should be more than power - it should be obligation.” is a view expressed in the Animal Liberation Front mission statement. It is a view expressed almost verbatim by a plethora of individuals within academia, including scholars, historians, and professors. While this appeal to authority may carry little weight on its own, it can certainly be agreed upon that all individuals must take responsibility for themselves and their own actions. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that all individuals must take responsibility for their inactions as well. The fundamentals of nutrition, the scientific method, and logic all point towards ethical veganism, and thus furthering this understanding facilitates a transitional paradigm between arbitrary societal traditions and rationalism. Video footage and graphic images are also available, preventing claims of ignorance as to the practices of the meat and dairy industries. The free exchange of information allows for this education to promote knowledge and, thus, responsibility. Since a society is a collective of individuals, any individual living in society and not recognizing their obligation to its state of affairs is merely deluding themselves with regards to their contribution to an ideology every bit as oppressive as racism and sexism.
Quote:"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."-Friedrich August Hayek