Vegan Abolitionist

Why Veganism? by Eva Batt

2009-06-26T22:27:00.011-04:00

Download (PDF)

Resurrecting a bit of vegan history: Check out this essay by Eva Batt, an early prominent figure in the vegan movement. She wrote this piece as veganism was approaching its 20th anniversary in 1964. I am making the full text of this essay available online to help illuminate the history of veganism, few primary sources of which are readily available. Obviously, the views expressed are those of Batt alone, and should not be taken as gospel truth in any respect. Furthermore, readers should be mindful that some of the facts presented are pertinent to England circa 1960s, and thus no longer accurate.

Interest surrounding humanity's relationship with other animals is growing. The vegan stance of non-exploitation is unmistakably unique, yet undeniably modest. It could not be more urgent or vital if we are serious about achieving justice for nonhumans. Veganism is now 65 years old, and most of the pioneering vegans are no longer with us. Looming larger than ever is the possibility of a fundamental shift in the meaning of 'vegan', which could slowly and unwittingly drift far from its origins, or succumb to an ideologically driven misappropriation. Worth quickly highlighting is Batt's insistence that "veganism is by no means concerned only with food". Please read, comment on, and critique Batt's essay.

updated 11:26 PM (EST) on 8/9/09 — Removed inaccurate claim about Eva Batt authoring the first vegan cookbook ever published. Batt did author What's Cooking? (1973), but Fay K. Henderson's Vegan Recipes (1946) was published by The Vegan Society 27 years earlier.

On Veggie Pride Parades

2009-03-20T23:05:00.028-04:00

updated 1:23 PM (EST) on 4/12/09

History & Description
"Veggie Pride Parades" take place in the spring, once annually [1].

• Since 2001 in France
• 2008 & 2009 in Italy
• 2009 in Czech Republic
• 2009 in United Kingdom
• 2008 & 2009 in New York
• 2009 in Los Angeles

Between the six parades, there are four separate organizational efforts (the events in continental Europe share backing). The French parade inspired the the NY parade, which inspired the LA parade. The respective promotional materials are revealing. The NY and continental parades are geared toward both "vegetarians and vegans", which they will concatenate into terms like "veg*n" and "veg*ism". The LA parade is geared primarily, though not exclusively, toward vegetarians. The UK parade is billed as a "Celebration of Vegan and Vegetarian Lifestyles".

“'Veg*ani': abbreviazione per 'vegetariani o vegani' [2]

Viewing pictures from the 2008 NY parade can help you understand these events. Some participants dress up in vegetable costumes, others wear witty tee-shirts. There is sign-holding and chanting. The parade culminates in a park where speakers and entertainers take the stage. Advocacy groups and businesses (often overlapping categories) promote their agendas and sell their wares.

Criticism & Commentary
Veggie Pride parades probably send a worse message than an equivalent "Vegetarian Pride" parade would. 'Veggie' and 'veg' are disturbingly popular big-tent terms. They are so broad, admitting, and ambiguous as to mean almost nothing. They conflate and obfuscate two phenomena that, despite sharing some letters, are radically disparate. Veganism is the ethical perspective that rejects all exploitation of nonhuman animals. Vegetarianism is the diet that rejects the consumption of "meat" from one or more species of nonhuman animal.

At least with a parade that is explicitly and consistently vegetarian, the organizers would not be stepping on the ideological toes of people interested in taking a serious stance on human/nonhuman relations (i.e. vegans and proponents of nonhuman rights). It's tremendously unfortunate that vegetarianism managed to outlive the 20th century. Vegans don't help matters by participating in or promoting 'veggie' events. Vegetarians should skip these parades and spend that time investigating veganism.

But what if they were "Vegan Pride" parades? I would still demur, for the following reasons: Temporary satisfaction in becoming vegan is understandable, but pride in being vegan is unwarranted. Fulfilling our minimal obligation demanded by the rights of sentient beings should be expected. Most would find it peculiar, and probably inappropriate, to have parades for people who denounce sexism or racism. So why should we have them for those who condemn speciesism?

Furthermore, such an event could reinforce perceptions of vegans as self-righteous. Veganism isn't about you or me. Vegans are not heroes, nor the elite few. If we ever hope to have a serious justice movement oriented toward abolishing nonhuman slavery, our efforts must cultivate an external focus on nonhumans. Marches, rallies, and other demonstrations could certainly do this if carefully formulated. But I do not believe the 'Pride parade' model fits the bill.

That the LGBTQ community or another group subject to discrimination would have Pride parades is understandable. Such events can focus attention upon victims and their resistance to hegemonic societal norms (e.g. heternormativity), as well as challenge the moral legitimacy of society denying them equal consideration and respect because of whatever "defect" it has identified.

The vegan movement must begin to recognize that the fundamental problems are anthropocentrism and speciesism. Thus, the relevant victims are enslaved nonhumans. An appropriately analogous Pride parade couldn't even be organized without undermining our vegan principles!

Endnotes

[1] "Veggie Pride" websites: Continental Europe, United Kingdom, New York, Los Angeles

[2] From the FAQ for the Italian parade

Veganism: Sui Generis + Language Recommendations

2009-01-28T19:25:00.021-05:00

updated 10:21 AM (EST) on 3/18/09

The importance and singularity of veganism can hardly be overstated. Sui generis means unique or constituting a class of it own (from Latin sui = of its own & genus = kind). The vegan perspective on human/nonhuman relations is radically unlike any other. Following some discussion about the role of veganism, I offer three recommendations for aligning our language with that fact that veganism is truly sui generis.

“Veganism is not the end point or the most we can do; rather, it is the least we can do. — Dan Cudahy [1]

Veganism represents an ethical starting point for personal conduct. As the commitment to demonstrate respect for sentient nonhumans by not exploiting them, veganism is no different than the minimum demanded by respect for humans of differing sex, race, or sexual orientation. When humans construct arbitrary dividing lines between each other, that is bigotry. When humans arbitrarily draw a line between their species and other sentient species (between humans and nonhumans), that is also bigotry: speciesism.

So being vegan is about satisfying our own moral obligation to nonhumans. But vegans are also members of a social justice movement that is dismantling speciesism, the most devastating form of discrimination ever known. Each vegan is part of something that far exceeds the confines of labels like "lifestyle" or "choice". The moral commitment of each vegan leads her to make particular choices, and conditions her lifestyle, but vegan behavior cannot be separated from vegan belief. Only morality (not environmental or health concerns) can inform the categorical rejection of all nonhuman exploitation. Maintaining our health and sustaining the environment only requires that we mitigate, not eliminate, the slavery of other animals.

“Veganism is the application of the abolitionist principle to the life of the individual. It is not an option; it is essential. — Gary Francione [2]

Moving forward, in 2009 and beyond, veganism must be lifted from the morass of contradictory and shortsighted responses to the human/nonhuman relationship. Veganism must be the guidepost held high, or lighthouse brightly lit, providing clear moral guidance for all humans interested in ethical thinking. Without a massive expansion of the vegan population there will never be justice for nonhumans, just endless tweaks and reformulations of speciesist norms. We must unabashedly and unapologetically live vegan and promote veganism. Our collective voice must become strong enough that none can claim ignorance of what we stand for. Simply put, there wont be a vegan world until far more advocates start talking about veganism!

Mary Martin recently commented that the term speciesism (coined by Richard Ryder in 1970) is "unfortunate" because some find it awkward to pronounce and spell. Vegan, as a word, is unfortunate for another reason. Its resemblance to vegetarian engenders the conflation of two totally disparate approaches. In 1944, Donald Watson and Dorothy Morgan actually coined vegan from "the beginning and end of vegetarian" [3]. Later that year, Watson established the vegan movement, deciding to leave behind "non-dairy vegetarianism" and eschew names suggested for their splinter group like "dairyban, vitan, benevore, sanivore, and beaumangeur" [4]. Vegan is clearly preferable to these rather bizarre alternatives. Yet its lingual similarity to vegetarian provides the opportunity for people to interpret or suggest ideological similarity. Despite sharing some letters, these terms represent fundamentally distinct ideas.

Veganism is holistic, whereas vegetarianism is myopic. Vegans oppose using nonhuman animals; vegetarians oppose only the consumption of nonhuman flesh. Veganism is consistent with the abolition of nonhuman slavery; vegetarianism is consistent only with the abolition of "meat". Veganism is an ethical perspective; vegetarianism is a diet.

The movement for nonhuman rights cannot tolerate uncertainty about vegetarianism and equivocation about veganism. Without veganism, there is no movement for nonhuman rights. Let's leave all omnivorous diets and mitigation schemes behind. Let's present one message: become vegan — it's easy. Everyone ready to investigate or challenge their relationship with nonhumans should find veganism and joyful vegans everywhere they look [5]. An exclusively vegan message diminishes the opportunities for humans to rationalize and defend their nonveganism. The very utterance of vegan should mildly impinge upon one's conscience. It should evoke externally directed thoughts about nonhumans and the morality of exploiting sentient beings.

Three Language RecommendationsNote: If you are not yet vegan, please become vegan before fine–tuning your lexicon.

Problematic: "Omnivores" or "Omnis" (in reference to humans who are not vegan)
Recommend: Not vegan. Non-vegans. (with or without dash)

Defined by the Vegan Society, nonhumans should not be "exploited" for "food, clothing, or any other purpose" [6]. Omnivorous describes only what someone eats: plants and animals (from Latin omnis = all & vorare = devour). So the above use of language erroneously suggests that veganism also describes only what someone eats (presumably just plants). Putting veganism in gastronomic terms encourages unwarranted associations with nonmoral practices like "cleansing", and diets like "macrobiotic" or "fruititarian". The extent to which veganism is thought to concern food, shunning non-food transgressions (like "wool" and rodeos) will seem superfluous and extreme.

Problematic: "Veg*ns", "Veggies", "Go Veg", and "Vegetarian/Vegan"
Recommend: Vegans. Go Vegan. Vegan.

Early members of the Vegan Society cut through several centuries of conceptual crud laid down by vegetarians. Veganism invalidated vegetarianism, which was instantaneously outmoded and deficient. These are two irreconcilable answers to the question of nonhuman slavery. And yet, the above use of language suggests that vegan and vegetarian are the same, or only nominally different. This contributes tremendous confusion and helps people feel okay about being less than vegAn. Let's dump the star, reclaim our A, and reacquaint it with G! Finally, associating veganism with a diet improperly implies, like problem one above, that veganism is just dietary behavior.

Problematic: "Vegan dogs", "My cats are vegans", and "Vegan children"
Recommend: Plant based diet. Herbivorous diet. Being raised by vegans.

Nonhuman companions and very young humans have limited or nonexistent moral agency. These individuals do not maintain a conscientious moral commitment to other sentient beings, even though aspects of their behavior (determined by those they live with) might be consistent with such a commitment. Therefore, the above use of language reinforces the view that veganism is merely practice. Dividing action from ethics is required to consider the locus of veganism dietary rather than moral, and human rather than nonhuman. Veganism strictly as behavior permits an emergent primacy of environmental and health considerations, which invariably take an inward focus that erodes the moral imperative of veganism. Our society is so deeply entrenched within speciesism that accounting for and listing all scenarios and potentially necessary behaviors is impossible. When governed by a conscience that acknowledges the inherent value of sentient nonhumans, vegan behaviors will follow.

Endnotes

[1] unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/02/veganism-as-minimum-standard-of-decency.html

[2] www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=13

[3] www.vegansociety.com/about_us/hall_of_fame/#DW

[4] www.vegparadise.com/24carrot610.html

[5] Colleen Patrick-Goudreau is offered only as an example of a particularly joyful vegan, not an exemplar of my language recommendations. I strongly disagree with her use of vegan and vegetarian interchangeably.

[6] www.vegansociety.com/images/ArticlesofAssociation.pdf

New B&W Abolitionist Poster

2008-12-22T18:39:00.017-05:00

updated 12:19 AM (EST) on 7/10/09

English: US Letter and A4 size

German: A4 size (Translation by Martin Deffner)

Spanish: A4 size (Translation by Samuel Álvarez)

French: A4 size (Translation by Quentin Deboeuf)

Greek: A4 size (Translation by Anastasia P.)

Slavery and Language

2008-09-06T03:41:00.003-04:00

Nonhumans are our slaves. We use them to satisfy our ends. Speciesism allows this by degrading nonhumans into the class of things and resources. Some members of this slave class, an infinitesimal proportion, are viewed affectionately and treated relatively well. Yet the fundamental relationship of subjugation and domination remains constant. Even the most doted upon slaves are still slaves. The enterprise of domestication is indelibly human-centered, from its origins through till its eventual abolition. Nonhumans do not belong within the human community, and will always have their opportunities for genuine satisfaction foreclosed by our direct and calculated relationships with them. We should not be using the other sentient beings of this planet for any reason whatsoever. Underlying this claim is the rejection of speciesism, lynchpin of the human/nonhuman relationship.

Let's address one aspect of speciesist language. Terms like "dairy cow", "layer hen", "guard dog", "companion animal", "game animal", and "circus animal" are offensive and demeaning. Such labels deindividualize. From the outset, they impose human expectations — for milk, eggs, protection, and so on — upon nonhumans. By integrating their "purpose" within our nomenclature, nonhumans are defined and considered, not on their own terms, but on ours. When we refer to nonhumans by the particular form of exploitation they must endure, we help legitimize that (and all) exploitation; we imply acceptance of sentient beings existing solely to serve. Analogously, consider how, less than 200 years ago, humans captured in Africa were being enslaved within America. Terms like "cotton human", "sugar person", "tobacco girl", "rail boy", and "house slave" are clearly inappropriate and racist. They are only appropriate as seen through the eyes, and spoken by the mouths, of those who exploit.

Update and Thoughts

2008-08-11T12:11:00.033-04:00

updated 2:46 PM (EST) on 8/18/08

Though I have not been posting new entries, I have been regularly updating the sidebar documents filed under "Perspective and Approach". These updates will continue as warranted, and similar new documents will be crafted over time. Everyday I attempt to read, think, talk, and/or write (hopefully all four) about our relationship with the other sentient beings of this planet. There is at least one new entry about veganism well underway. For those unable to abide my sloth, please check out the various external resources within the sidebar. For now, I would like to delve into lines of thought surrounding three topics: welfarism, militancy, and language.

1) Integral to the welfarist approach, particularly (though not exclusively) as practiced by the P-TA corporation, are ideas about who the "enemy" is, and what constitutes "success" when it comes to relations with the public. The "enemy" is cast as exploitive industries generally, as well as specific producers of exploitive products. This helps to explain the top-down nature of their approach, focus on regulations, and willingness to promote corporations that will implement meager husbandry adjustments [1]. A "success" at communication is nearly any tactic that garners attention or produces hype — steps toward increased revenues. This helps to explain the focus on claiming "Victory!", reluctance to unequivocally promote veganism, and willingness to reinforce sexist attitudes by embracing the strategic objectification of human females [2].

My perspective is that speciesism drives our exploitive relationship with nonhumans; that exploitive industries exist only because non-vegans demand the products and services they provide. Furthermore, corporations are shielded from meaningful "attack" because the law protects their interest in using "their" nonhumans with a property right, one fundamental and long-standing aspect of Western jurisprudence. Attempting to regulate industry sets up a futile balancing act between the corporate interest in their property, and the properties in question (sentient beings), who legally have no interests and are thereby things — viable resources [3]. Efforts at regulating industrial exploiters equate to: legal person (with economic interests) thought to satisfy a social demand versus legal property (with no interests by definition) thought provide a social service by being used.

Attention and hype are not intrinsically valuable. Public exposure should never come at the cost of appealing to our worst ideologies and validating the dynamics of domination. Such communication is incompatible with dignified, ethically-grounded, hearts and minds based appeals. My view of success is non-violent, non-sexist, and non-racist education about the moral imperative of veganism that resonates with an audience. The abolitionist approach works from the bottom up, and diminishes demand, by poisoning the roots of the problem: viewing nonhumans as things.

2) Militant campaigns employ tactics along the lines of violence, property destruction, harassment, and/or intimidation [4]. Like welfarist efforts at reform, their approach is top-down. Militants hack at the branches and leaves of nonhuman oppression: institutional practices. Their tactics cannot be applied coherently when only a fraction of the population is vegan and exploitation permeates society. Almost every human and business that militants daily interact with are participants in nonhuman exploitation.

Militants grasp at coherency with their target selection — institutions that can appear uniquely heinous. Single-issue campaigns result, usually anti-vivisection or anti-fur [5]. These attempts to differentiate their target fail. Vivisection labs, "fur farms", and slaughterhouses are all equally terrible and rest upon the same bed of speciesism as every form of nonhuman exploitation. For the sake of argument, suppose the nonhumans at vivisection labs and "fur farms" did experience more suffering than any other domesticate. Focusing on vivisection and "fur" within this scenario would be more confusing than at present because it would more strongly suggest that treatment is the primary problem. The rights movement rejects all nonhuman use, irrespective of how "cruel" any particular use is.

Conditioned by speciesism, society almost always values human interests (even when trivial) over nonhuman interests (even when significant). Two obstacles block positive shifts in perspective among public onlookers. First, individuals must get past, without being dismayed or outraged by, the tactics themselves. For those few capable of this step, their attention is logically drawn toward the "cruelty" of specific uses, not use per se. If by some miracle, an onlooker to militancy did thereafter reject the moral legitimacy of fur or vivisection, their daily lives and participation with exploitation would remain nearly stagnant — they would not be vegans.

Two concluding points. Militancy is necessarily single-issue, for if not, it would be reduced to senseless omnidirectional aggression. Militants must have isolable targets that can be characterized as particularly horrific to justify their aggressive tactics and bypass the first obstacle.

3) "Why not just say 'animals'?"
Human is an animal species, thus "other animals" or "nonhuman animals" are more accurate than "animals" alone. However, phrases like "sentient nonhumans" and "other sentient beings" are even more precise. Nonhuman could refer to anything that is literally not human. Qualifying nonhuman with sentient limits the scope to beings with interests — those with moral significance.

The five kingdoms are continually being challenged and adjusted: originally there were just two, and eventually an alternative classification system might be substituted [6]. Invertebrate species, at least some of which are very likely not sentient, compose the majority of "the animal kingdom". With the category of animal in flux, and not tied to sentience, it is ultimately inappropriate. Our language should reflect where we draw the line: between entities with moral significance, and those without; between sentient beings and non-sentient things. The line must be moralistic, not taxonomical.

The word "animal" also carries the ideological baggage of speciesism. For example, phrases at the tip of every Americans' tongue include: "treat me/them/her/he/us like animals" and "she/he/they acted like (an) animal(s)". Human identity is often constructed around the notion that we are somehow above the amorphous animal other — that animality excludes humanity. Of course, this runs contrary to the lessons of evolution: humans are deficient relative to many nonhumans, and no human traits are qualitatively unique, as they are all shared to some degree by nonhumans.

Simply using "animals" is often quite convenient: it is easier to write, and can make for simpler verbal discussions. But language plays an important role in breaking the mold of an irrational human/animal distinction that bears speciesist overtones. Substituting for "animals" can generate powerful cognitive dissonance by sparking crucial questions about humanness.

Endnotes

[1] P-TA recently made a deal with KFC in Canada. Roger Yates provides commentary: entry one and entry two. Mary Martin explored a specific P-TA promotion of KFC: part one and part two. Gary Francione commented here.

[2] Here are recent examples of welfarist corporations utilizing the "Victory!" claim: P-TA, HSUS, IDA, and COK. Here are recent examples where P-TA has commodified women to further their ends: Amanda Beard, Jenna Jameson, Eva Mendes. These links are provided for documentation purposes only. I do not suggest spending any time exploring these websites.

[3] See the book "Animals, Property, and the Law" by Gary Francione. Alternatively, watch this video presentation based upon that work.

[4] Associations such as SHAC, ALF, and ARM are specific examples.

[5] Gary Francione looks at single-issue campaigns here. Also reference his discussions of moral schizophrenia.

[6] See this article: "The Decline and Fall of the Animal Kingdom"

Efforts by Gary Francione

2008-07-06T18:07:00.015-04:00

updated 8:35 PM (EST) on 7/27/08

Over the past weeks and months, Gary Francione has generated some noteworthy items. 1) New book entitled Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. Purchase the hardcover at a 50% discount from Columbia University Press until August 1st. 2) Tri-fold abolitionist pamphlet that touches upon the majority of his basic talking points. Described and made available for download at his blog post: Vegan Education Made Easy—Part 3. 3) Interview conducted by Jenna and Bob of Vegan Freak Radio. They discuss his new book as well as various issues surrounding veganism and abolition. Part One (57:42) and Part Two (56:08). 4) Interview conducted by Bob Linden of Go Vegan Radio. They primarily discuss (starting at 14:06) problems involving welfarist reforms and organizations. All listening options.

Use versus Treatment

2008-06-08T19:05:00.070-04:00

updated 10:18 PM (EST) on 10/4/08

Should humans USE nonhumans? This question is unmistakably distinct from the following: How should humans TREAT the nonhumans they exploit? Better treatment and less suffering are clearly preferable to worse treatment and more suffering. But this does not mean that better treatment and less suffering are morally acceptable, or goals worth pursuing.
Gary Francione has summarized this crucial distinction [1]:

“ In order to understand how we think about animals as a moral and legal matter—both historically and at the present time—it is necessary to consider two different aspects of our relationships with other animals: our use of animals and our treatment of animals. These aspects are different because whether we use animals at all for a particular purpose is a different question from how we treat them pursuant to that purpose. For example, whether it is morally acceptable to kill and eat animals at all is a different question from how we treat the animals we eat and whether, for instance, we raise them in intensive "factory farms" or in "free-range" conditions, or how we slaughter them. Our use of animals is a separate matter from whether our treatment of them is "humane" or "cruel."

To develop this distinction, consider an imaginary scenario...

Scenario Details You own me. Nathan is your legal property, and personal slave. Your neighbors and the local police do not question this relationship. Conditioned from birth to accept my servitude, my resistance is nil. My responsibilities include laundry, preparing and serving your meals, making your bed, cleaning your bathroom, vacuuming your carpet, mopping your floors, and so on. You are very exacting and insist upon perfection. You disparage and degrade me everyday; you often hit me. I am only allowed outside to wash your vehicle and mow your lawn. Every night you lock me inside a dank basement room furnished with a light fixture, meager cot, dresser, toilet, and sink.

Scenario Deconstructed You use me, and view me instrumentally — exclusively as a tool or resource that you may freely manipulate. Nathan is seen strictly as a means to your ends, not as a person holding intrinsic moral worth. Within this relationship, the particulars of my treatment are at your unfettered discretion. My property status underlies those particulars, whatever they might be. The fact that I am used, is a prerequisite for any details about how I am being treated. Discussing my treatment is impossible or meaningless without the underlying ownership that allows me to be used.

Metaphorically, my slavery is a birthday cake. My use and property status are represented by the cake itself. The adverse treatment I receive is represented by its frosting. Thicker coats of frosting are more terrible than thinner coats. But reducing the frosting coat cannot eliminate the birthday cake (free the slave), it just slightly alters the quality (slave's experience).

There are countless possibilities for altering Nathan's treatment, yet none of them even remotely compromise my underlying use and property status. Some examples: providing a comfortable bed instead of the meager cot, implementing positive reinforcement in place of disparagement, allowing one labor-free day every week, preparing your own breakfast, and so on.

Questions and Conclusion 1) How would real you feel about imaginary you making such changes? 2) Could real you discharge your moral obligations to me, and be satisfied, by supporting alterations to my treatment? 3) Could real you visit your imaginary house, and have Nathan cater to your wants, as long as my treatment met a standard? 4) Why does imaginary you own someone in the first place?

Nathan's treatment could be voluntarily adjusted by imaginary you, or externally regulated by the government. But no variety or amount tweaking would challenge the problem fundamentally. Until my inherent value is recognized my best hope is oxymoronic: happy slavery.

Everyone agrees that it is preferable to treatment someone well rather than poorly. However, when it comes to slavery, we reject discussion about less awful treatment — it totally misses the point. Slavery is unconscionable, irrespective of how slaves happen to be treated.

Enslaving Nonhumans Human beings behave as though sentient nonhumans are slaves (things, resources, or means). This behavior is consistent with their legal status as property, but not required by it — we can elect to become vegan. Some within the class of nonhuman slaves, an infinitesimal proportion, are viewed affectionately and treated relatively well. However, the fundamental relationship of subjugation and domination is constant. Nonhumans do not belong within the human community. They will always have their opportunities for genuine satisfaction and natural expression foreclosed by our direct and calculated relationships with them. Slaves most doted upon, are still slaves.

Endnotes

[1] From Animals as Persons (2008 book) p1

Introductory Statements

2008-06-08T18:24:00.086-04:00

updated 10:04 PM (EST) on 10/1/08

The exploitation of sentient nonhumans should be abolished, not adjusted. We can only achieve this goal incrementally. As individuals, our minimum requirement is veganism. Living happily, healthily, and unabashedly as a vegan sends a powerful message by itself. Though not obliged, we can also further the abolitionist cause by actively engaging others with creative, dignified, non-violent, and non-discriminatory education about the moral imperative of veganism.

Human TaxonomyAnimals > Vertebrates > Mammals > Primates > Great Apes > Homo Sapiens

We are just another leaf on the evolutionary bush, millions of years in development. No human traits are truly unique — they are all shared, to some degree, with some nonhuman species. Sentience evolved because it facilitates a being's self-promotion. Pleasure, pain, awareness, preferences, and desires are interconnected traits that help sentient creature thrive. Species that possess these traits have opportunities to interact with, navigate, and manipulate their surroundings not found among non-sentient life. Human beings are sentient, as are many nonhuman beings.

Sentient NonhumansDefinite: Vertebrate animals (birds, reptiles, fishes, mammals, amphibians) such as chickens, dogs, hamsters, cows, beavers, mooses, cats, pheasants, eels, horses, salmons, buffalos, tunas, giraffes, snakes, manatees, llamas, otters, pigs, chinchillas, donkeys, raccoons, goldfishes, rats, peacocks, opossums, herrings, bears, camels, geckos, sharks, rabbits, basses, deers, kangaroos, alligators, turtles, ostriches, minks, tilapias, iguanas, elephants, turkeys, mice, trouts, parrots, seals, foxes, catfishes, geese, frogs, goats, lynxes, coyotes, sheeps, gerbils, and canaries.

Probable: Invertebrate animals with brains (insects, arachnids, crustaceans, mollusks, worms) such as spiders, bees, crabs, ants, shrimps, earthworms, crayfishes, oysters, crickets, lobsters, squids, beetles, snails, and moths. Possible: Invertebrate animals who possess nervous systems but lack brains (cnidarians, echinoderms, ctenophorans) such as jellyfishes, sea anemones, sea stars, corals, sand dollars, hydras, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers. More about sentience.

Things: Not SentientPlants (flowers, trees, cactuses, ferns). Fungi (yeasts, molds, mushrooms). Microorganisms such as algae, amoebas, bacteria, and viruses. Animals that lack nervous systems (poriferans, placozoans, rhombozoans, orthonectids). Rocks and minerals. Objects made by humans.

Exploitation ExamplesBroadly: For any sentient being domestication is slavery; to domesticate is to enslave. Capturing, breeding, manipulating, dominating, or subjugating the other sentient beings of earth is exploitive. Accordingly, as is violence toward free-living (non-domesticated) nonhumans.

Categories: Food, clothes, vanity, entertainment, sports, protection, companionship, sex, transport, draft, experiments, and education. Specific: Bird and fish eggs. Ruminant milk (including derivatives such as yogurt, cheese, butter, and whey). "Meat" (muscles, organs, other flesh, gelatin). "Pets" and "guards". Zoos, aquariums, rodeos, circuses, races, fights, shows, carriage rides, and movie roles. Hunting, trapping, and fishing. Vivisection and dissection. Consumer products tested on nonhumans. "Down", "leather", "wool", and "fur" (feathers, skin, hair, and skin+hair). Pearls, silk, carmine, honey, propolis, and royal jelly. "Ivory" (tusks, teeth). Read about veganism.

Vegetarian: a "Flexible Category"

2008-05-01T13:44:00.023-04:00

Several months ago at work, while flipping through a trashy hollywood tabloid magazine to pass time, something caught my attention. Check out the following excerpt from the "GO GREEN 101" sidebar of a spread entitled "Stars' Ecofriendly Beauty Buys"; found within the August 20th edition of Us Weekly magazine [pages 83-84]. The subtitle is "Hollywood goes green! Organic beauty expert Kimberly Sayer explains why all natural chemical-free products are good for you".

"Vegan products don't contain any animal-based ingredients at all, while vegetarian is a more flexible category that allows for animal-derived ingredients such as eggs and yogurt.

What she says is essentially correct, and fairly insightful. Properly labeled "vegan" products must not contain ingredients derived from nonhuman animals, nor should they have been tested upon them. Two simple, yet very powerful criteria. Veganism is the principled opposition to all nonhuman exploitation, but when it comes to consumer wares, the preceding criteria are suitable.

What then, defines a "vegetarian" product? The answer is rather unclear. There are some, like Pamela Rice, who "don't like" the term vegan but imply the above criteria when they say vegetarian. Her view is particularly rare, and muddles an otherwise conspicuous line. Far more prevalent, both currently and throughout history, is the "flexible" notion of vegetarianism. If vegan were to be summed and restated as non-exploiter, vegetarian would, by extension, become non-"meat" eater. However, even this might be generous, as many vegetarians only consider mammal flesh problematic, and regard the bodies of birds and/or fish as acceptable food sources.

Vegetarianism surrounds questions of diet, what one eats, not our behavior more generally. For example, some vegetarians find gelatin offensive, but rarely is "leather" questioned. Ethically, these products of exploitation represent a distinction without difference: one is eaten, the other worn, but both are taken from corpses. Institutions such as zoos, rodeos, circuses, races, "pets", and "fur" all escape evaluation. Unfortunately, holistic moral principles have never been an essential aspect of vegetarianism. Even concerning diet, where avian eggs and bovine milk are usually embraced, vegetarianism takes no consistent stand against treating sentient beings exclusively as means to our ends. Nonhuman animals are available to be domesticated, oppressed, managed, dominated, enslaved, used, and killed... as long as it is not for "meat", whatever that is. Flexible yes, but not in any positive or laudable sense. When it comes to exploitation, flexibility, at least of the kind vegetarianism stands for, should always be viewed pejoratively.

An Explanation of Rights

2008-04-13T16:47:00.094-04:00

updated 2:55 PM (EST) on 10/24/08

Introductory example: Suppose Jessica bears a widely recognized right to privacy in her home. She is therefore protected from spying by government researchers — regardless of any socially beneficial results their study might generate. Jessica is also protected from spying by unaffiliated strangers — regardless of any voyeuristic pleasure they might derive.
You probably recognize phrases like: women's rights, labor rights, children's rights, disability rights, voting rights, civil rights, and gay rights. The American Bill of Rights, at least in theory, favorably impacts all citizens. Though first devised by and for "wealthy white male landowners", rights are an inherently neutral concept that has extended far beyond the originators [1].

Role Within PhilosophyRights are essential to deontological ethics (from Greek deon = obligation, necessity, or binding). Teleological or consequentialist approaches to ethics, like utilitarianism, are incompatible with rights (from Greek telos = end, result, or goal). Deontology concerns duties and the immediate morality of behavior. Teleology concerns objectives and the consequences of behavior. Utilitarians endorse acts or rules that maximize the general welfare (pleasure, happiness). Rights theorists seek protections that will not bend to consequences — erode simply if others might benefit.

How prominent philosophers, who have challenged our relationship with nonhumans, break along the above lines: Peter Singer (Animal Liberation - 1975) is a utilitarian who only uses the term rights rhetorically [2]. Tom Regan (The Case for Animal Rights - 1983) and Gary Francione (Introduction to Animal Rights - 2000) have embraced deontology and promoted true rights.

Fundamental DefinitionsRights are mechanisms (tools) that help structure our senses of empathy, respect, obligation, and/or privilege. Rights are used to protect interests, which are anything that sentient beings "want, desire, or prefer" [3]. For example, Tommy prefers racquetball to tennis, Yvette wants to eat an apple, and they both desire long happy lives. Things have no interests — they are physically unable to "want, desire, or prefer". Rights can protect any interests held by any sentient beings, or groups thereof. Rights are not directly applicable to things, which have no interests to protect.

Application and OperationRights are indirectly applicable to things. Sentient beings can have interests that concern things. For example, group-K wants to conserve the local freshwater spring. Whoever safeguards this interest with a right is obliged not to spoil the spring. A thing is only protected to satisfy group-K's interest. Things have no subjectivity — no self to appreciate existence. Things cannot be attributed intrinsic value. Their worth is "extrinsic or conditional" — strictly relative to sentient beings [3]. Group-K is not claiming springs bear rights. Polluting the spring violates group-K's right.

Rights, metaphorically speaking, place brick walls around interests. Walls that cannot be demolished simply because it would benefit the trespasser(s), or generate positive consequences generally. For example, Jessica desires physical security. She lives where basic human rights are well established. Society will not tolerate anyone murdering her for food, stealing her organs, or making her undergo invasive medical procedures that might lead toward disease cures. Such transgressions are rejected prima facie, regardless of any potential advantages or favorable outcomes.

Rights must be socially acknowledged. For example, Jessica desires personal liberty. But when 99.9 percent of those around Jessica deny this interest, her freedom is jeopardized and she will probably be enslaved. Conversely, when 99.9 percent of those around Jessica respect her interest in personal liberty, her freedom is safeguarded and her enslavement is rather unlikely.

Rights must be socially fulfilled. Since total compliance with rights is unrealistic, perpetual vigilance is called for. Arrangements must be developed that reasonably guarantee interests will be protected. For example, group-L has long been discriminated against. Establishing their physical security might entail active steps like: challenging stereotypes and language that degrade group-L, punishing those who assault group-L members, and rehabilitating group-L victims of assault.

Rights are not necessarily absolute. For example, Jessica can forfeit her right to liberty. Society will respond if she threatens to set off explosives at her school. There would be cause to break down the walls surrounding her liberty and mandate psychological treatment or imprison her. Furthermore, despite normally complying with basic human rights, William might kill and consume Jessica if they were stranded together at sea and starvation overwhelmed his rationality.

Rights are not always legislated. For example, prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, some Americans were permitted to own human slaves. But conscientious individuals could refuse by embracing the slaves' moral rights. Governments protect citizen and state interests by enacting legal rights, which are enforced by the courts, police, military, and so on. Individuals might disagree with a legal right, yet never transgress the protected interest because they fear state reprisal.

Rights are an ethical construct. Metaphysical objects, like deities and spirituality, are not necessary to formulate rights. Despite popular language use, rights are not something sentient beings actually have (like vestigial organs), but something others must give them (like shields). All sentient beings can receive rights, they are moral patients. But only some sentient beings are moral agents who can comprehend, abide by, and bestow rights. Many humans, including the sociopathic and very young, are granted rights despite their malformed or undeveloped moral agency.

Conclusion and SummarySentient beings have interests because they can "want, desire, or prefer". Rights protect interests non-consequentially (irrespective of consequentialist considerations). Put another way, a right places its interest off-limits, even from those who might gain from disregarding it. Only this kind of barrier can rule out transgressions like rape, slavery, and racial discrimination.

Endnotes

[1] Introduction to Animal Rights by Gary Francione (2000 book) p168

[2] Petitioning PeTA and Who's for Animal Rights? by Roger Yates (2007 essays)

"With the benefit of hindsight, I regret that I did allow the concept of a right to intrude into my work so unnecessarily at this point; it would have avoided misunderstanding if I had not made this concession to popular moral rhetoric." from The Fable of the Fox and the Unliberated Animals by Peter Singer (1978 article) p122

[3] Clarifying the Meaning of a “Right” by Gary Francione (2007 essay)

Descriptions and Positions

2008-04-08T20:42:00.274-04:00

updated 3:12 PM (EST) on 9/25/08

Vision for Veganism1) Vegans view sentient beings not as things or resources, but as morally significant individuals who have personal experiences, and an interest in their own lives. Accordingly, veganism rejects violence toward, and the use of, sentient nonhumans. Although many behaviors are necessarily ruled out, vegans follow their consciences in determining ethically consistent conduct.

2) Vegans are not especially valiant or disciplined. Vegans align their actions with a simple moral principle grounded in empathy and respect. Veganism is shorthand for the: a] Commitment to reject the exploitation of sentient nonhumans — no matter how they happen to be treated. b] Lifestyle, and non-participation with popular practices, required by the preceding point.

3) Veganism must become: a] The nonnegotiable moral baseline, and default position, of advocates for nonhumans. b] Regarded as thoroughly satisfying, and compatible with hedonism. c] Promoted unequivocally and unabashedly, in accordance with the preceding points.

4) Coincidentally, some aspects of the vegan lifestyle are excellent steps toward improved health, and reduced environmental devastation. These appealing bonuses are accessories to arguments that establish nonhumans' inherent value, and veganism as a moral imperative.

5) Vegetarianism should be understood as: a] Categorically different than and incompatible with veganism. b] Prescribing an extraordinarily myopic, anemic, and incoherent ethical agenda. c] The class of diets that exclude only specific foods derived from the bodies of sentient nonhumans. d] Leaving aside all questions of nonhuman exploitation beyond what one eats.

6) Veganism is not a diet, but an ethic with an external focus: sentient nonhumans. Diets are inwardly focused on various human concerns and ambitions. There is no necessary or inextricable link between veganism and soy based foods, nor labels and notions such as "organic", "fair trade", "green", "natural", "raw", "cleanse", "macrobiotic", "fruititarian", and so on.

Drawing the Line7) Sentient beings cherish their lives — they can be harmed. One cannot empathize with or respect non-sentient entities (things), which have no personal interests and can only be damaged. Sentient beings possess the following complementary traits: a] Subjective awareness — some manner of self. b] Preferences and desires. c] Ability to feel pain and experience pleasure.

8) All sentient species are classified as animals, but not all animals are necessarily sentient. Some invertebrate animal species might not be sentient. Drawing clear lines can be difficult, but it is not impossible, nor morally acceptable to draw none. The vast majority of exploited animal species are definitely or probably sentient. Species on the margin should be beneficiaries of our doubt. There is no reputable scientific evidence, nor logic, suggesting that plants are sentient.

Making Connections9) Speciesism, one manifestation of anthropocentric thinking, represents: a] The prevalent ideology and bias preventing equal consideration for nonhumans' interests, despite our shared sentience. b] Excluding beings from the moral community because of their species — an irrelevant criterion. c] Discriminatory institutions and behaviors that stem from the preceding points.

10) Speciesism is logically analogous to forms of othering such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. Opposing speciesism is inconsistent with embracing discrimination against particular human groups. Promoting basic rights for sentient nonhumans is inconsistent with denying basic rights for humans. Urging nonviolence is inconsistent with helping perpetuate human violence toward billions of sentient earthlings. Veganism is easy enough to quickly (or at least eventually) become second-nature. It is therefore not mutually exclusive with activism that challenges human inequity.

The Welfarist Approach11) For over two hundred years, welfarists have sought merely to regulate how humans treat their nonhuman slaves. In recent decades, many modern welfarists have been employing strategies nearly identical to those of their classical counterparts, yet claiming that they lead (or are conducive) to abolition. Welfare reforms, only the most conservative of which have any hope for implementation, bring about modifications that are compromised, meager, and difficult to monitor. Most importantly, they are structurally incapable of shifting the paradigm away from speciesism.

12) Welfarism cannot transcend the nonhuman property status. It creates balancing acts between the interests of human property owners (legal persons), and those of nonhumans (legal property). Unsurprisingly, the scale tends to tips generously in favor of humans. Welfare regulations typically only protect nonhuman interests that facilitate economically efficient exploitation, so they are bound to be voluntarily enacted at some point. Even though exploitive industries often stand to benefit from welfare campaigns, they always offer at least token resistance to any regulation.

13) Welfarists expend tremendous time, energy, and resources waging battles that provoke only minor tweaks of our relationship with nonhumans. These tweaks ostensibly improve treatment, but obscure the underlying problem of use, which translates into implied acceptance thereof. By making nonhuman exploitation more palatable to the onlooking public, welfarists are reinforcing speciesism and the property status, as well as conditioning unresponsiveness to veganism.

14) Those who encourage others to shun products of nonhuman exploitation, while also advancing reforms of nonhuman husbandry, are understandably regarded as dishonest. Their efforts instruct the ability to satisfy our obligation to nonhumans, by adopting the products of such reforms, but they really want something more. Such inconsistency helps generate much confusion.

15) Drawing from utilitarian philosophy, welfarism considers anything that might reduce suffering or cruelty worthy of celebration and promotion. Concerning individuals, veganism becomes an extreme position on a spectrum that includes vegetarianism. Welfarists praise any move along their spectrum, relegating veganism to merely an option for enterprising heroes and ascetics.

The Abolitionist Approach16) Abolitionists seek to bring sentient nonhumans within the moral community by securing their basic rights, which protect basic interests like: a] Not being human property. b] Not being subjugated by humans. c] Not being harassed, assaulted, or murdered by humans.

17) Abolitionists are pushing toward the: a] Termination of all efforts at domestication, while care is provided for every nonhuman already bred or captured (who cannot be reintroduced or returned) till they have age related deaths. b] End of all direct and calculated human/nonhuman relationships. c] Non-interventionist, relatively peaceful future implied by the preceding points.

18) Abolitionists advance uncompromising veganism — straightforward and honest. Nonhuman exploitation deeply pervades society. Abolition cannot be legislated or imposed from the top-down, at least while exploitation is generated by popular demand from the bottom-up. Veganism is lived abolition — embedded within the psyche, and expressed as non-participation. A potent sociopolitical movement for abolition cannot develop without a substantial vegan population.

19) Domestication is reckless human domineering, violates basic rights, and manufactures conflicts with nonhumans. We need respectful resolutions. Regrettable but laudable, this includes adopting or rescuing domesticates who would otherwise be killed or live in relative misery. To reflect abolitionist principles, such nonhumans should be: a] Attentively cared for within a suitable home or sanctuary. b] Fed an herbivorous diet whenever possible. c] Never allowed to reproduce.

20) Education is the paramount vehicle leading toward abolition. Violence toward humans cannot be: a] Morally justified. b] Positively interpreted by the government or other onlookers. c] Coherently applied while surrounded by those who participate with nonhuman exploitation.

USING Horses

2008-03-16T11:46:00.027-04:00

Supplemental to my recent post entitled One Key Point. Sharon Biggs, contributing editor to Horse Illustrated magazine, was interviewed in the February 2008 issue. From my perspective, her behavior is morally odious, and the industry she supports is an abomination. However, to be clear, I feel the exact same way about my family members who eat cheese. My purpose is not vilification or defamation. Rather, her statements help to illustrate a crucial aspect of abolitionist theory. Where appropriate, emphasis has been added to the following questions and answers.

"Horse Illustrated: Describe the horse(s) in your life.
Sally Biggs: My first horse was Genny, a 3-year-old half-Arabian. Then came Dandy, a half-Arabian gelding, who would do anything for you. At 32, he is now retired on a farm in San Diego. Then came a few other horses in between—Callie, a Thoroughbred mare, and Kasanova, a former racing Quarter Horse. My last horse was Kermit, a 12-year-old Dutch Warmblood trained to Prix St. Georges. My new horse is Gretta, a 6-year-old Hanoverian/Belgian warmblood cross.

This quickly establishes her perspective. She accepts that humans are free to breed horses, that is, to dominate and manage the species. Each horse is described in terms of how humans have manipulated his or her genetics, as well as other extrinsic qualities. In the lone case of Dandy, a horse is described by something other than relative attributes, and is characterized more as an actual individual. However, she only notes that he was subservient, which is clearly the objective horse exploiters must strive for, if they are to extract pleasure from their investment.

"Horse Illustrated: What do you do with your horse?
Sally Biggs: I ride dressage primarily, but since we have trail access right nest to the barn, I do quite a lot of schooling there.

It is completely at her discretion what she does with her property. If she feels like spending hours conditioning horses to be acquiescent when she desires control over their faculties, so that she can engage in an "equestrian sport"... that is what happens. If she feels like entertaining herself by making horses ferry her about the nearby trail... that is what happens.

"Horse Illustrated: What has your horse taught you?
Sally Biggs: All of my horses have taught me to be patient. My goals are not their goals, and I was the one who got in the saddle, so it's up to me to convince them to hang around!

This speaks for itself. The whole enterprise/industry is inherently human-centered.

"Horse Illustrated: Best horse advice you have received:
Sally Biggs: Don't be obsessed with riding the best horses, discarding the less-than perfect ones or the poorly trained. Because if you can't ride all horses, then you aren't a horseman, you're just a rider.

Make sure not to be obsessed with discarding "less-than perfect" horses? Apparently at least some discarding is okay [1]. Why? Her answer has everything to do with the subjugating human, and nothing to do with the horses being subjugated.

"Horse Illustrated: Words of advice to share:
Sally Biggs: Make sure you don't become a competitor first and a horseman second. Your horse and his concerns should always come first.

Oh? How about when "his" concerns are not your concerns? (see two questions above)

People that actively contribute to the continued domestication of nonhuman animals needn't say much to reveal their moral schizophrenia. If you genuinely respect and value a sentient species, you don't bring new individuals of that species into existence so you can use their bodies for your enjoyment. It's really that simple.

The morally imperative alternative is also very simple. Care for every horse that humans have already brought into existence, but discontinue the activity. End this experiment in reckless domineering, and move towards non-intervention. There are plenty of other ways that humans can entertain themselves, experience companionship, and participate in sports. Nonhuman animals are not required for these pursuits.

Endnotes

[1] From another piece within the February 2008 issue of Horse Illustrated: "Even though all U.S. slaughter plants that once processed horses are now closed, our equines are still being shipped to Canada and Mexico for slaughter." Yes, humans do eat horses.

Now is the Time

2008-03-07T22:32:00.006-05:00

An abolitionist document, suitable for both print and web distribution, is available as promised (it's a PDF file). Commentary on the document, and perhaps other developments surrounding it, are forthcoming. For now, please take a look...

Time to Get Serious: Rethinking Our Relationship with Non-Human Animals

More Thoughts on Veganism

2008-01-25T21:54:00.003-05:00

Following up on my entry entitled Rethinking Veganism in this New Year, allow me to share another perspective on all this. Veganism is activism... a daily personal protest, and form of direct action. With some practice and dedication, it eventually becomes second-nature. Veganism need not consume the entirety of one's time or energy. Audible utterances not requisite, vegans speak with action. Effectively saying NO; this is absolutely crazy, and I will not participate.

Many strangers, and probably our friends and family too, will initially rebuff our beliefs... much like the jerking leg movement that follows a firm tap on the knee. But our stance is highly principled and deeply felt; we really have nothing to hide, nor to fear. The human potential for transformation is unmistakable. What might seem radical in 2008, will eventually seem rather mundane at some year in the future. The seeds of progress and moral development are certainly extant, yet dormant within most. Veganism is already highly consistent with notions held by the majority, albeit in a logical suspension... such as the very popular opposition to unnecessary suffering.

Tenable justifications for viewing non-human animals merely as resources, which almost invariably leads us towards abjectly violent and exploitative behavior, are simply nonexistent. Taking the interests of sentient non-humans seriously, clearly means not bringing them into existence such that we may treat them as things. Extending our empathy for non-human suffering, means that we must rethink our relationship with animals. Vegans follow these ideas through to their logical conclusion: end our relationship with animals. By way of metaphor, this mean drawing an extremely deep and conspicuous line within the sand. Eliminate domestication of any sort, and cease transgressing upon animals in nature. Vegans align their actions in the here and now, with the non-interventionist future they ideally desire, irrespective of whether or not they will live to see it.

Veganism represent the potential for a genuine societal paradigm shift... an entirely fresh way of processing the world around us, and the sentient creatures occupying it. Our movement is prenatal; it has yet to blossom, or even find its voice. Perhaps if more of the major players (both groups and individuals) among "animal people" were to unequivocally and emphatically promote veganism as a baseline moral position... things would be different. Fortunately, we are ultimately beholden only to our consciences, not any figurehead or established organization. Lest we clarify and bolster our own voices now, can we possibly hope for an authoritative movement in the future?

Morally Irrelevant Criteria: Cuteness (part one)

2008-01-21T16:48:00.000-05:00

When it comes to protecting basic interests, such as avoiding violence and bondage, abolitionists view sentience (subjective awareness, and the ability to experience pain) as the only relevant, and requisite criterion. Utilizing sort of a back-door approach, this series of entries will bolster the importance of sentience, by pointing out the irrelevancy of other criteria that are frequently utilized (both implicitly and explicitly) to examine moral matters.
The etymology of "cute" is rather interesting, you may investigate it if so inclined. Let's first attempt to summarize the contemporary meaning and usage of this term, at least here in America. 1) Concerning gender norms, the term is not considered an appropriate utterance for males, lest sarcasm or sardonicism is attached. Males can receive the term (be/act cute), but are discouraged from applying it to something else, as well as seeking personal cuteness. To spite this normative nonsense: I (Nathan Schneider, a biological male) think squirrels are very cute. Deal with it. 2) Females are permitted to use the term freely, as common parlance, with no notable restrictions. Females are encouraged not only to regulate (as gatekeepers) the bounds of cuteness... but to achieve personal cuteness, both in appearance and comportment. An everyday phrase for many American females: "aww, that's so cute". 3) Things described as cute strike us as innocent, pretty, charming, pleasant, and/or quaint. Cute things make us feel positive, warm, happy, joyful, and/or smiley. 4) Most young and newborn mammals (both land and sea based) are considered cute. Zoos often take advantage of this reality, to generate revenue, by promoting a yearly "Zoo Babies" program. Some mammals (such as rabbits, chinchillas, raccoons, et cetera) are widely viewed as cute during all stages of life. Few young or newborn birds, and even fewer mature birds, are typically found to be cute. Reptiles, amphibians, insects, and fish are almost never seen as being cute. Calves, chicks, and piglets are customarily regarded as cute... but when mature, these broadly exploited non-humans are generally deemed rather non-cute, if not ugly.

Here are three specific examples where cuteness helps to pollute our ethical considerations. As an aside, the other major factor within each example, is that rejecting or expunging the behavior in question, does not seriously and comprehensively challenge or inconvenience the general non-vegan public. 1) Tremendous campaigning and focus surrounding the annual commercial seal slaughter in eastern Canada. Hundreds of thousands of seals, many of whom are very young, are clubbed or shot to death. This activity is certainly terrible and morally unjustifiable. Yet the emphasis upon it far outweighs the relative number of lives lost. Remember that Americans directly support the slaughter of several billion chickens every single year. Young seals, with their waddling movements and becoming wide-eyed mugs, are simply far cuter than chickens. Does this make their death and misery more important? Certainly not. 2) Perpetual campaigning and focus surrounding the consumption of veal. Slaughtering anemic calves, such that we may consume their muscles, is absolutely horrific and beyond justification. But does the emphasis properly reflect the relative ethical transgression? Certainly every bovine seeks pleasure and avoids suffering, regardless of whether or not humans consider them cute. 3) Perpetual campaigning and focus surrounding the purchase of fur. Review the non-humans most commonly exploited for fur... beavers, raccoons, foxes, chinchillas, dogs, minks, cats, and rabbits. Each of those species does strongly appeal to our sense of cuteness. But should that constitute, or even influence whatsoever, our appraisal of their moral value? Those non-humans are all conscious and sensate. We are ultimately empathizing with their exploitative plight, not the appeal of their movements and appearance.

As an exercise, imagine if cuteness were to become the morally relevant criterion for a rights-type protection of non-human animals, or (stated another way) their membership within the moral community. Our approach would actually be incredibly selfish, arbitrary, and anthropocentric. Only the exploitation of certain non-humans, determined on an individual basis, would be rejected. Remember that while cuteness is somewhat standardized, it is still ultimately quite subjective. The non-humans who enflame our particular sensibilities and appreciation of cuteness, would be protected from exploitation, but nothing intrinsic about their existence would be pulling at us. Meanwhile, we would disregard the exploitation of any non-human animal found to be unappealing or unattractive... despite their similarity of awareness, and capacity for pain.

Put aside our relationship with non-humans for a moment. Does the relative cuteness of fellow humans affect their moral worth? Of course not. All humans are granted inviolable rights, which protect basic interests, stemming from their shared sentience, which we empathize with directly. We need not know anything else about them. The basic interests of highly appealing or attractive humans... are protected no differently than less attractive or appealing humans.

Monday Thought Parade

2008-01-07T17:56:00.001-05:00

With the content of my January 2nd entry still swirling around in my brain, allow me to expound upon my thoughts. Please read that entry before continuing here. 1) Humans are animals. More particularly, we (humans) are one of several currently extant species within the biological family know as "great apes". 2) Veganism is not a diet. Rather, it is a deeply felt personal commitment; one that helps to inform or regulate our daily actions, and more generally, our way of living. 3) Technically speaking, vegans do have a diet, at least to the extent that there are some foods and beverages incompatible with the commitment that underlies veganism. 4) Vegans do not consume any cholesterol. Accurate: "Vegans have a cholesterol-free diet". Misleading: "The vegan diet is cholesterol-free". Drugs such as Zetia, which claim to block the absorption of cholesterol from food, completely miss the point. Although, the majority of actions taken by the profit obsessed pharmaceutical industry are reckless, manipulative, and harmful. 5) Diet is one aspect of veganism, one of many. The human exploitation of non-human animals, absolutely pervades our society. Considering that the term vegan was coined to represent the logical extension and development of vegetarianism... it would simply make no sense if veganism did not address the unnecessary exploitation of non-humans for purposes of sport, entertainment, companionship, experimentation, education, or clothing. Ignoring the numerous use categories outside of food, is to betray the original, profound spirit of veganism, and the interjection of consistency it represented. Could a vegan take a break from their search for the perfect pure-bred poodle, so that they could attend a PBR event wearing their new fur coat and leather boots? If veganism is only a diet... perhaps so. 6) Vegans won't eat cookies that contain butter or eggs. As to why, the short-hand answer is: because such cookies are "not vegan". However, let this almost quip-like statement not obscure the content of the commitment that underlies the term vegan. Such cookies, as innocuous as they may appear, represent exploitation and violence. Eating them helps to reify the acceptability of such behavior, both within our minds and the minds of others. Eggs and dairy are simply not food.

7) The majority of those who claim to be vegetarians, apparently disagree. There is no tradition of ethical consistency within vegetarianism, which does primarily concern diet. Even there, it only proscribes the elimination of meat (a euphemism for the muscles or internal organs of non-human animals). Despite some possible ambivalence, by-and-large, vegetarians do consider eggs and dairy to be food. 8) Being that veganism is not a diet, omnivore is not an appropriate antonym for vegan. Considering the word parts, omnivore literally means: one that eats everything. Concerning sensible categorical descriptions: there are only vegans, non-vegans, and those transitioning towards veganism (by revamping their mind-space and adjusting their actions accordingly). Omnivores are certainly non-vegans, but someone could be a herbivore (one that only eats plants) and still not be vegan, depending upon their more general view of the human relationship with non-humans. 9) Along these lines, it would be more appropriate if those who claim to be "vegan for health reasons", referred to themselves as herbivores; or otherwise related to people that they generally avoid concentrated amounts of dairy, meat, and eggs. Relatively improved health is simply one likely benefit, of one aspect of being vegan (diet). However, health is not even guaranteed for vegans, especially considering the ever increasing availability of vegan junk foods. Being "vegan for health reasons" distorts veganism by reducing it to dietary terms, when it is clearly so much more. 10) Vegetarianism offers such an anemic and myopic agenda, which produces a devastating absence of coherent ethical substance, that I have previously described vegetarians as omnivores with a "strange food preference" [1]. Vegetarians essentially eat everything minus meat, ostensibly stemming from an ethical obligation to at least some non-humans. Yet everything ethically problematic about meat (death, misery, oppression, violence, et cetera)... also characterizes eggs and dairy. The substance of a vegetarian's ethical obligation, is rather unclear and confusing, to put it gently. 11) Getting serious about a genuine paradigm shift concerning the human relationship with non-humans, requires that we become far more critical, and ask probing questions. Developing greater cognitive dissonance within ourselves and others, will only mean more improvement and more change. For example, considering the paradoxical nature of ovo-lacto vegetarianism, why could not someone carry through the (il)logic, and state to be a lacto-carne vegetarian? Similarly, how about an ovo-carne vegetarian? All three incarnations are only going one-third of the way to expunge morally odious consumption behaviors, and leave aside all other questions of non-human use. 12) Finally, operating from the spirit of expansive and consistently applied ethical principles that was introduced with the term vegan, does not the commitment underlying veganism, also urge that we continually reevaluate our theory and praxis concerning the human animal, as well as the natural world? Non-human animals are certainly not alone in being subjected to exploitation, domination, and violence... not only from individual malefactors, but also stemming from our hierarchical social structure itself. For much more along these lines, I recommend the new book by Bob Torres entitled Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights.

Endnotes

[1] Reference my first entry: Ovo-Lacto Vegetarianism

Debating "Speciesism"

2008-01-03T19:36:00.005-05:00

Sequence of EventsJoan Dunayer (2004): Book titled "Speciesism" [Amazon]

Jeff Perz (2006): Book review titled "Anti-Speciesism: The Appropriation and Misrepresentation of Animal Rights in Joan Dunayer's Speciesism" [Abridged or Unabridged]

Joan Dunayer (2007): Response titled "Advancing Animal Rights: A Response to Jeff Perz's 'Anti-Speciesism,' Critique of Gary Francione's Work, and Discussion of Speciesism" [PDF or Web]

Jeff Perz (2007): Rebuttal titled "Adulterating Animal Rights: Joan Dunayer's 'Advancing Animal Rights' Refuted" [PDF]

Rethinking Veganism in this New Year

2008-01-02T23:54:00.000-05:00

updated 7:44 PM on 1/7/08

Yes, it's extremely important to "go vegan", or "become vegan". But vegan is not some sacred pinnacle of ascetic achievement that only an elite and intrepid few can master and then claim. Not at all. Struggling towards the ability to declare a state of immaculate purity known as "veganism"... is not a perspective I recommend. Doing so can obscure the actual content or purpose. Veganism should not be pursued for the sake of veganism. There is so much going on behind the term that we must never lose sight of. Perhaps it will be helpful to think of it like this: vegan is a short-hand description for a certain dedication, and the lifestyle thereby entailed and requisite.

The Dedication: Stated and restated numerous ways... Reject the use of all non-human animals. Reject all domestication of non-human animals. Reject the property status of non-human animals. Reject the commodification of non-human animals. Reject the objectification of non-human animals. Reject the exploitation of non-human animals. Reject the domination of non-human animals. Reject the oppression of non-human animals. Reject the imposition of violence toward non-human animals. Disregard the unabashedly speciesist societal paradigm that currently predominates... as well as its normative influence, which is frequently embodied by people who are quite close to us. Refuse to view non-human animals as resources. Refuse to regard non-human animals as means to human ends. Refuse to view non-human animals as mere things. Recognize that non-human animals are members of the moral community. Recognize the sentience of non-human animals. Recognize the subjective awareness of non-human animals. Recognize that non-human animals have personal interests. Recognize that non-human animals avoid pain, and seek pleasure.

The Lifestyle: The real-world ramifications of this dedication should be clear: non-participation. When individuals have taken steps to rigorously and seriously remap and reformulate their mind-space along the above lines... the term vegan already describes them, quite fittingly. Stated another way, if the above notions were genuinely integrated aspects of an individual's life, to the point of being subconscious and second-nature, that person would be vegan, unquestionably.

Vegetarians: Time to Get Serious

2007-12-17T09:49:00.000-05:00

Here are four critical thinking exercises, and a related conclusion. 1) How is having a slice of cheese on your veggie burger... ethically distinguishable from having a slice of ham on your veggie burger? 2) How are veggie burgers that contain small chunks of cheese... ethically distinguishable from veggie burgers that contain small chunks of meat? 3) How are sandwiches layered with a variety of cheese slices and vegetables... ethically distinguishable from sandwiches layered with a variety of meat slices and vegetables? 4) Generally speaking, how is using "just a little bit of cheese"... ethically distinguishable from using "just a little bit of meat"?

Conclusion: If you (the reader) reject non-human flesh (meat), but not dairy products... what are you actually saying about the human relationship with cows? Are you being consistent in rejecting our use/domestication of cows? Are you rejecting (in any coherent way) the infliction of unnecessary death and misery upon cows? Are you rejecting the environmental degradation that stems from the intrinsic inefficiency of exploiting cows (and all non-humans) for food?

Video from Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary

2007-11-27T16:34:00.001-05:00

The Faces of "Free-Range" Farming[peaceful prairie's website and blog]

Recommendation + Rethinking Food

2007-11-21T18:51:00.002-05:00

Rhetorical question: Have you ever seen Gary Francione's "Theory of Animal Rights" presentation? [video or slideshow] It walks viewers through the abolitionist approach to animal rights in a very accessible and efficient way. Take some time to check it out and consider his arguments.

Here is a quick point about retooling how we conceptualize food. Think about methods of enhancing a dish's appeal. We generally tend to make our foods more salty, sweet, and/or oily. Exploiting the human predilection towards these three sensations has become extremely big business (and is helping to kill us - so please practice moderation). When it comes to adding flavor complexity, never forget the endless varieties of (and uses for) spices, herbs, juices, peppers, onion family members like garlic and shallots, or fermented products like vinegar and tamari. Everything mentioned above (and much more)... is a powerful tool for both vegan and non-vegan cooks.

Also recognize the inherent potential and allure of vegan staples such as: fruit, greens, potatoes, rice, seeds, oats, nuts, squash, beans, pasta, bread, quinoa, tofu, seitan, and tempeh. Vegan cooks can never honestly say that they have done it all, or tried everything.

Never This and Never That

2007-11-19T16:43:00.001-05:00

updated 8:59 PM on 11/21/07

Here are some thoughts about non-vegans, particularly those who have spent little or no time thinking about the human-nonhuman relationship. Personally, I am all too familiar with statements such as "but, I could never give up cheese"... or some other animal based food(s). These expressions are rather frustrating, for many reasons. But most importantly, it's because they aren't even remotely true! As previously stated, nutrition and hedonism are both easily satisfied within veganism. So why do people seem to believe their quick dismissal? To find the answer, we must examine their mind-space when uttering that hyperbolic "never".

It ultimately comes down to ignorance, not in the broad pejorative sense, but ignorance nevertheless. Average omnivorous Americans do not understand much of anything about veganism [1]. Simply stated, they are unclear about what we do, let alone why we do it [2]. Additionally, they have grown up with (and continue to enjoy) their lifestyle, which the overwhelming majority of society accepts by default, and without hesitation. Considering this context, we should not be incredibly surprised when people readily declare what they "could never" do. Superficial notions about veganism are usually evaluated as an imposing list of NOs... one which includes socially noncontroversial foods, presently favored because they are tasty and familiar.

Let's break it down. Person-A justifies their non-veganism by claiming they could "never" abandon behavior-X. We all recognize that this is empirically false... but let us not forget the many facets of their probable mind-space: 1) Person-A is unsure how they would begin substituting for behavior-X. 2) Person-A is uncertain why they should reject behavior-X. 3) Person-A feels no social pressure to reject behavior-X, or can avoid any that does arise. 4) Person-A senses that rejecting behavior-X could generate conflict with their partner, family, friends, and/or peers. 5) Person-A feels an attachment to behavior-X stemming from tradition, convenience, and/or pleasure.

Advocates for veganism, which is the intra-personal application of abolitionism, are thereby challenged to explore effective methods of helping non-vegans both learn about and internalize [3] the how's and why's of our lifestyle. Educating people about how our food is not only healthy, but also very delicious; as well as discussing why we consider it morally imperative to reject every form and instance of animal exploitation. Patience, honesty, creativity, and an even-temperament are our allies. As is recognizing the transformative potential within us all.

Endnotes

[1] Because veganism has been around for over 60 years, I consider this a tremendous failure. Almost none of the large-scale organizations/businesses and philosophers/leaders that dominate the animal "movement" are unequivocal in their promotion of veganism as a moral baseline. Serious advocates have no choice but to operate outside of this establishment. We clearly have no shortage of work to do.

[2] Individuals have asked me if I can eat peanut butter, mustard, and so on.

[3] Animal exploitation is normative and pervasive within society, so deeply internalized ethics are absolutely required for consistent and sustainable veganism. Most omnivores around us would welcome our joining them for ice cream or cheese pizza.

Ramblings + Sustainable Veganism

2007-11-15T00:03:00.000-05:00

Here I go. Not leaving this chair until I post something. I definitely envy/respect bloggers like Mary Martin [www.animalperson.net] who post daily. Speaking of Mary, definitely check out her new/first pamphlet called "Thinking Critically About Animal Rights". It is a PDF file, and it has some good information and perspectives worth considering. As for myself, I wont post part two of the Indigenous Cultures series until I conjure enough time and energy to actually get it right (no pun intended). Unfortunately, there are several posts that I have started on, and gotten pretty far with, but never actually completed for whatever reason. They will surface eventually. I think about issues surrounding veganism and animal rights at various points throughout every single day. It's all very serious and important to me, and that simply wont stop. Now, let me explore some of my thoughts related to why some people stop being vegan.

There are many poor reasons for going vegan. If it is something you are just "trying", stemming from indeterminate or unstructured feelings about cruelty... don't expect to stay vegan. Pursuing veganism to rebel, impress someone, or gain any type of clout offers even less prospects for sustainability. Consistent and perpetual veganism is easy once you have located the alternatives and started establishing new preferences. As previously stated, being vegan doesn't necessitate daily hassles. I wear clothes and shoes that aren't made of skin, silk, hair, or fur. Their fashionability and overall niceness is a matter of discretion. I make use of effective cleaning and hygiene solutions that don't rely upon slaughterhouse byproducts or animal testing. I eat wonderfully fulfilling vegan meals based upon simple and inexpensive ingredients derived from plants. These aspect of my life are now second-nature. They honestly don't require any more thought or energy on a daily basis than is demanded by a comparable non-vegan lifestyle.

New vegans are required to work these details out for themselves, taking their particular context into consideration, and undergo a transitional period. The difficulties that they invariably face, are easily sufficient to derail most "trials" of veganism; as well as discourage those who are vegan for the superficial reasons I listed above. Furthermore, I characterize the human use of non-human animals as being both pervasive and normative. Put another way: it is everywhere... and everyone encourages (or accepts) it. These are the societal realities that can get both new and longer-term vegans thrown off course. Without a properly internalized and sufficiently serious ethical framework underlying the decision to be vegan, it becomes very simple to adopt behaviors that are consistent with the dominant societal paradigm (reckless animal use). You need not go very far (or wait very long) to encounter opportunities for doing something non-vegan. Supportive humans, to help dissipate the guilt of responsibility, will be easily accessible for those that do relapse. For an example, person-X recently told me about how she ended her veganism because it presented her with some uncomfortable situations at social and family events involving food. She is now an omnivore, more specifically: a variety she calls "vegetarian".

She doesn't understand veganism like an abolitionist does. Quite simply, the reasoning behind her decision was immature (at best). When individuals dismantle the specter of speciesism within their lives, and begin to seriously respect a basic right for non-humans... skipping a meal, ordering a plain salad, or inconveniencing a family member is nothing. An abolitionist sees veganism as a moral imperative, and nonnegotiable baseline. We are vegan for life. Turncoats (like person-X) consider veganism a moral elective, befitting only a brave few.

Our Moral Imperative

2007-08-15T15:05:00.003-04:00

updated 6:32 PM on 8/20/07

Veganism is a moral imperative within my life; an indelible baseline. The only logically consistent intra-personal response to abolitionist beliefs, is veganism. Truly accepting that every use of nonhuman animals is superfluous and anthropocentric, can lead to nothing but veganism. There are no other viable options [1].

My position against rape is similarly rigid. Physical attraction to another person, regardless of its intensity, is unrelated to whether or not I will sexually violate them. Likewise, soufflés are not acceptable food to me, no matter how beautifully presented or aromatically spiced. These are nonnegotiable stances in all but the most extreme cases [2].

For distinction, consider inter-personal kindness... an incredibly imprecise, conditional, and subjective concept. But, the chances are, one that strikes us as important or valuable for many reasons. Despite this, we probably don't deem it morally imperative, unlike our positions on rape and animal exploitation... which are precise, unconditional, and objective. At the end of the day, it is somewhat difficult to determine if I was suitably kind in every situation. But I am positive that I didn't rape anyone; or eat any meat, eggs, or dairy. Comparing or ranking evils is not pertinent here, but the ethical calculations underlying these stances are definitely equivalent. Both fervently demand that we reject an unwarranted violation of rights ("human" and "animal" respectively). However, there is a significant practical difference between the two.

Rape is harshly condemned by powerful normative forces found throughout society. Animal exploitation is typically dismissed or outright ignored by people collectively. For example, asking an unknown person to help you commit a rape... is seen as morally intolerable behavior. Randomly inviting a complete stranger out for a steak and egg breakfast... is considered socially unacceptable behavior. Rape is a strongly ingrained taboo, and most people don't regard avoiding it as challenging or inconvenient. Rapists constitute a small percentage of the population, while nearly everyone is raised as an animal exploiter (albeit indirect).

Distinct circumstances obviously surround the eradication of rape and animal exploitation within our lives. Relative to eschewing rape, veganism does require slightly more effort, and some small personal sacrifices. When rights are taken seriously, both processes are self-evident ethical necessities. We are thereby obliged not to view either as stifling (prima facie). Luckily, even plausible reasons for feeling oppressed are rare. Becoming vegan is easy; and happens to make tremendous influence, pride, and fulfillment readily available to us.

Never committing rape has incalculable ethical value, but little symbolic power. People rarely (if ever) confront that aspect of my life, or even discuss the topic generally. Being consistently and proudly vegan is far more perceptible, and actually a passive form of activism. Essentially a silent, "live daily protest" against our speciesist relationship with nonhuman animals [3]. One that operates independently of the "outreach, education, and other social interactions" that I touched upon in my recent post entitled Our Zero-Sum Game. When non-vegan coworkers, colleagues, peers, family, friends, or even strangers observe us shunning animal products... they usually experience a "moment of cognitive dissonance" [3]. Meaning they are provoked to internally confront any unsettling ethical distinctions between their choices and ours. Those around us certainly might become dulled to this effect over time. But even then, any negative conceptions about deprived and secretly miserable vegans, are being subconsciously dismantled. All of this influence is innate, and can come without speaking a single word.

Beyond impacting others, veganism generates pride within my life. Living honestly, in accordance with my values, brings me great pleasure. Veganism offers an uncanny association between values, actions, and results. Every new vegan reduces demand, thereby averting copious death and misery. Sentiments and knowledge concerning topics such as politics, healthcare, and war are unfadingly relevant; but unfortunately, they seldom lead towards transformative personal or societal changes. Opinions on the use of nonhuman animals are easily developed into concrete steps forward. Furthermore, the ancillary benefits of veganism are fantastic... substantially reducing my impact upon the earth, and eliminating several unhealthy food categories. When the underlying concepts aren't properly internalized, veganism can appear endlessly burdensome and tedious. But most vegans don't have daily personal battles with swearing off the spoils of animal exploitation. It becomes second-nature.

From thrift stores to online specialty shops... alternatives to leather, fur, wool, and silk are not overly pricey or troublesome to come by. When it comes to vegan food, there are so many excellent and inexpensive options we can try, even at common chain grocery stores [4]. Farmer markets, natural food stores, CSAs, and co-ops are all increasingly prevalent options as well. What is genuinely endless: the wonderful variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, seeds, tubers, herbs, spices, oils, sweeteners, and prepared vegan products. From public libraries to online bookstores... there are scads of easily obtainable vegan cookbooks with details and suggestions on utilizing this bounty. Additionally, most restaurants featuring non-American cuisines (Indian, Thai, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mediterranean, et cetera) usually have several delicious vegan options. There are even numerous treats (candy, frozen desserts, baked goods, et cetera) available to us. Deprivation, limitation, and joyless meals are simply not typical facets of veganism; but a sense of fulfillment absolutely is, without doubt.

All forms of animal exploitation are blatant rights violations, so rejecting them is an imperative. Regarding our own lives, this means nothing short of veganism. Significant influence, pride, and fulfillment are easily accessible after the simple transition to veganism. These aspects of our new relationship with nonhuman animals, are not necessary ethical considerations. But they are attractive enough bonuses to reveal that non-veganism is exceedingly selfish.

Endnotes

[1] My post entitled Ovo-Lacto Vegetarianism addresses this highly confused diet.

[2] To such a degree, that even imagining sufficient circumstances is quite difficult.

[3] These phrases are often used by author Bob Torres. Cognitive dissonance is an academic term, primarily used within psychology and sociology. Reference this Vegan Freak Radio podcast (0:12.05 and 0:21.06 respectively)

[4] Some "food deserts" offer poor enough selection to render this portion of the entry less than fully reflective. These locations ordinarily correlate with high concentrations of particular races and classes; they represent the failings of our sociopolitical system — not veganism. Abolitionists necessarily oppose such discrimination.