Vegetarian: a "Flexible Category"

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 vs. Vegetarian
"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

updated 9:25 PM (EST) on 4/26/08

Introductory example: suppose that human-X bears a widely recognized right to privacy in her place of residence. She is protected from spying by government researchers, regardless of any socially beneficial results their study might yield. Human-X is also protected from spying by unaffiliated strangers, regardless of any voyeuristic pleasure they might derive.
Most people have at least heard about rights. Note your probable recognition of these phrases: civil rights, property rights, women's rights, gay rights, workers' rights, disability rights, and reproductive rights. Remember that here in America, we even have something called the Bill of Rights, which (at least ostensibly) significantly enhances the lives of all American citizens.

So rights are rather common, but what are they? Rights are tools — mechanisms that help structure our senses of empathy, respect, obligation, and/or privilege. We use them to protect interests, which can be anything that sentient beings "want, desire, or prefer" [1]. For example, human-T prefers tennis, while human-Y prefers racquetball; but they both want more life, and more happiness. Things (like rocks, pencils, broccoli, and so on) are physically unable to "want, desire, or prefer"... so they have no interests. Rights can protect any particular interests held by sentient individuals, or groups thereof. Rights are not directly applicable to things, as things have no interests.

However, sentient creatures (like humans, for instance) often have interests that involve or concern things. For example, group-K is interested in preserving the local freshwater spring (or orchard, if preferred). Group-K desires the continuation of everything it provides: sustenance, beauty, and recreation — this is the substance or content of their interest. Individuals that safeguard this interest with a right are obliged not to spoil the spring (burn down the orchard). The spring (a thing) is protected only because protection is the substance of group-K's interest. Things have no subjectivity — no self to appreciate existence. Things cannot be said to possess intrinsic or innate value, they only take on "extrinsic or conditional value", that is, worth strictly relative to others [1]. Group-K is not claiming the spring itself has rights. Springs (like all other things) have no personal interests, so rights are inapplicable to them (per definition). But if group-L destroyed the local spring, that would (from the perspective of group-K) violate their right to have it perpetuated.

Rights, metaphorically speaking, place strong brick walls around an interest. Walls that cannot be broken down simply because it would provide some kind of benefit to the trespasser(s), or positive consequences generally. For example, human-J desires personal liberty. Suppose she lives where basic human rights [2] are well established. Almost no one around human-J would accept her being non-consensually slaughtered for food, made to donate organs, or compelled to undergo invasive procedures intended to help develop new medical treatments. These types of actions are rejected prima facie, regardless of any potential advantages or favorable outcomes.

Rights are as effective or powerful as the esteem they receive from society, or (more specifically) from those around the interest bearer. For example, human-J hopes that everyone will protect her interest in liberty with a right. Suppose that 9.95/10 people around human-J choose to reject this right. Her freedom is seriously jeopardized within this scenario, and her enslavement is probably imminent. Likewise, 9.95/10 people around human-J could choose to accept this right. Her freedom is afforded protection within this scenario, and her enslavement is rather unlikely.

Rights are not necessarily absolute. For example, human-J could forfeit her liberty. Suppose that human-J exhibited violent or disruptive behavior that violated the socially accepted rights of others. In response, society (typically meaning the government) can break down the walls surrounding her liberty, perhaps leading to imprisonment or mandated psychological treatment. Furthermore, despite full-heartedly agreeing with and abiding by basic human rights [2], human-W might kill and consume human-J within the context of delirium brought on by prolonged hunger and isolation.

Rights may or may not be legislated. Individuals can usually elect to non-consequentially protect the interests of other sentient beings irrespective of positions held by the state. These moral rights require the recognition of conscientious individuals. Legal rights are proclaimed by governments, and enforced by bodies thereof (courts, police, military, and so on). An individual might disagree with legal rights, yet not transgress the interests they protect, for fear of state reprisal.

Rights are an ethical construction — conventions that help govern our interactions and behaviors. Having no metaphysical properties, they are not derived from deities or spirituality. Despite popular language use, rights are not something sentient beings have (like a vestigial organ), but something that others must give them (like a shield). Individuals that bestow rights (moral agents), believe the recipients thereof (moral patients) are owed protection for their interests. Notably, these recipients do not themselves need to understand rights, as is the case with young children and sociopaths, who are granted rights despite having malformed or undeveloped moral agency.

Conceptually, rights are straightforward and practical, not elite or unattainable. 1) Rights are tools that protect interests. Sentient creatures have interests, while things do not. 2) However, the substance of interests can certainly involve things, perhaps requiring their preservation. 3) Rights protect interests non-consequentially. Positive outcomes are insufficient justification for violation. 4) Rights need popular acceptance to effectively protect interests. 5) Rights are not absolute, at least to the extent that individuals can forfeit a right when they violate the rights of others, or lose their rational capacity during extremely desperate situations. 6) Legal rights enjoy state enforcement, while individuals can maintain moral rights independently. 7) Not metaphysically derived, rights are an ethical construction that serves to regulate the behaviors of moral agents.

[1] Clarifying the Meaning of a “Right” by Gary Francione

[2] Beings granted "basic rights" receive the modicum of respect necessary to limit the wills of those they interact with, and be lifted from the class of things or resources. Basic rights represent the underlying precondition for both moral significance, and genuine fulfillment. Humans with their basic rights secured are: a] Never chattel. b] Free from arbitrarily imposed violence and death. c] Free from subjugation without consent. ~~ Not incidentally, this closely mirrors my view of "animal rights" (humans are animals). Nonhuman animals cannot benefit from any protection beyond what is offered by basic rights. When secured, basic nonhuman rights demand the complete abolition of exploitation.

Fourteen Essential Positions

updated 2:33 PM (EST) on 5/18/08

Here are fourteen position statements that are essential to my perspective and approach.
1) Veganism is a shorthand term representing the: a] Commitment or dedication to reject the moral legitimacy of using or exploiting sentient nonhumans for any reason whatsoever. b] Lifestyle, and non-participation with prevalent practices, made requisite by the preceding point.

2) Veganism should be: a] The default, baseline position of advocates for nonhumans, and everyone who takes nonhuman interests seriously. b] Promoted unequivocally, and in accordance with the preceding point. c] Seen as the only viable path toward abolishing all exploitation. d] Regarded as highly compatible with activism that challenges human inequity. e] Known as thoroughly fulfilling, and easy enough to quickly (or at least eventually) become second-nature.

3) Abolitionists work to bring sentient nonhumans within the moral community by securing their basic rights, which protect basic interests such as: a] Not being human property. b] Freedom from arbitrarily imposed violence and death. c] Freedom from all forms of subjugation.

4) Empathy stems from acknowledging shared sentience. Non-sentient entities have no interests to protect. Sentient beings exhibit these complementary traits: a] Subjective awareness and a self. b] Preferences and desires. c] The ability to feel pain and experience pleasure.

5) Abolitionists are pushing toward the: a] Termination of breeding and domestication, while care is provided for every nonhuman already bred or captured (that cannot be reintroduced or returned) — until age related deaths occur. b] Cessation of all direct relations between humans and nonhumans. c] Non-interventionist, relatively peaceful future implied by the preceding points.

6) Speciesism, a manifestation of anthropocentric thinking that is analogous to racism, sexism, homophobia, and additional forms of othering, represents: a] The prevalent ideology and bias that prevents equal consideration for nonhuman interests — despite our shared sentience. b] Exclusion from membership within moral community based upon the ethically irrelevant criterion of species. c] Discriminatory institutions and behaviors that stem from the preceding points.

7) For over two hundred years, welfarists have sought merely to adjust and regulate how humans treat their nonhuman slaves. In recent decades, some modern welfarists have employed strategies nearly identical to those of their classical counterparts, yet claimed these strategies are helping lead toward abolition. Their efforts, fought by exploitive industries only as a matter of course, bring about modifications that are compromised, meager, and difficult to enforce or oversee. Most importantly, they are structurally incapable of shifting the paradigm away from speciesism.

8) Welfarism, which cannot transcend the nonhuman property status, creates balancing acts between the interests of human property owners (legal persons), and those of nonhumans (legal property). Unsurprisingly, the scale usually tips generously in favor of humans. Welfare regulations typically protect only nonhuman interests that facilitate economically efficient exploitation.

9) 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.

10) Welfarists encouraging that the products of nonhuman use be shunned, while advancing paltry reforms of nonhuman husbandry, are understandably regarded as dishonest. Their efforts instruct the ability to discharge our obligation to nonhumans, by adopting the products of such reforms, when they really want something more. This contradiction generates much confusion.

11) Welfarism, which is informed by utilitarian philosophy, considers anything that reduces suffering or cruelty worthy of celebration and promotion. Concerning the individual, veganism becomes the extreme position on a wide spectrum. Welfarists praise any move along their spectrum, relegating veganism to a mere possibility suitable only for enterprising heroes and ascetics.

12) Abolitionists advance uncompromising veganism — straightforward and honest. Nonhuman exploitation has deeply pervaded society. Abolition will never be legislated or imposed from the top-down, at least while popular demand for exploitation comes from the bottom-up. Veganism is lived abolition — embedded within the psyche, expressed as non-participation. Therefore, unless and until the majority of society elects to become vegan, we will never achieve abolition.

13) 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 nonhuman animals. d] Leaving aside all questions of nonhuman exploitation outside of what one eats.

14) Veganism is an excellent step toward improving our health, and reducing the environmental devastation we wreak. These appealing bonuses are merely accessories — secondary to arguments that establish nonhumans' innate value, and the moral imperative of veganism.

USING Horses

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) is 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.

[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

Notice the new link atop the right column? 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-Humans

One Key Point

Understanding the abolitionist approach requires mental clarity when it comes to differentiating between USE and TREATMENT. As an exercise, imagine that you (the reader) own me. Nathan Schneider is your legal property, and personal slave. Your neighbors all accept the legitimacy of this relationship, as do the local police, whenever they happen to come around. Because I was purchased while still very young, and thereafter conditioned to accept my relative position and future servitude, my resistance is nil. Concerning the specifics of our relationship, I am never allowed to leave your house... excluding those times when you demand that I either wash your car, mow your lawn, or attend your landscaping. Generally speaking, I spend the majority of my time in your basement, where I am allowed a small room... furnished only by a dresser stocked with uniforms, a singular light-bulb, meager cot, toilet, and sink. I am permitted upstairs only when you need something done. On a daily basis I: prepare your meals and wash your dishes; make your bed and clean your bathroom; vacuum your carpet and mop your floors. You are very exacting and demand perfection; pleasing you is extremely difficult. Beyond physical abusiveness, you also disparage and degrade me. Assuming that my performance might one day depreciate, you are already conditioning my replacement, who is being kept in another part of the basement.

Let's break this scenario down. 1) You use me, and view me instrumentally. Nathan is seen strictly as a means to your ends, not as someone with intrinsic moral worth. 2) Within this relationship, the particulars of my treatment are at your unfettered discretion. 3) My property status underlies those particulars, whatever they might be. The fact that I am used, is a prerequisite for any details of how I am being treated. Discussing my treatment is impossible or meaningless, without the underlying ownership that allows me to be used. 4) By way of metaphor, the whole of my slavery is a birthday cake. My use and property status, are represented by the cake itself. The part like sweet and tender crustless bread is clearly paramount. Without it, there really is no birthday cake. The adverse treatment I receive, is represented by the cake's frosting. Thicker layers of frosting, are certainly more terrible than thinner layers. However, reducing the frosting coat does not eliminate the birthday cake. Rather, the appearance or quality is just slightly altered. Even with no frosting whatsoever, the birthday still goes on. 5) There are countless ways that you could alter Nathan's treatment, without even remotely compromising the baseline of my use and property status. Let's look at some examples. You could provide me with a comfortable bed instead of the meager cot. You could allow me one labor-free day per week. You could implement positive reinforcement in place of disparagement. You could start making your own bed, and so on. 6) How would the real you, feel about imaginary you making such changes? Well, on one hand, real you might find such alterations worthwhile... because better treatment is always preferable to worse treatment. But on the other hand, real you would probably reject any discussion about less terrible treatment... because it completely misses the point. 7) Could real you discharge your moral obligations to me (or feel satisfied) by supporting alterations to my treatment? Could real you visit the house of imaginary you and allow Nathan to serve dinner, and cater to your wants, as long as my treatment met some standard? The pertinent question: Why does imaginary you own people in the first place, see fit to view them instrumentally, and use their faculties to satisfy your ends?

Finally, rather than being consumed with discussions about adjusting or regulating the treatment of individual slaves (or groups thereof)... Why not address the core problem, by simply denying the moral legitimacy of use altogether? Why not effectively negate those discussions, by sweeping away the instrumentalist paradigm upholding the very institution of slavery?

More Thoughts on Veganism

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)

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

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.

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

Rethinking Veganism in this New Year

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

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

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

Indigenous Cultures: Defining Rights (part two)

This is the second in a series of entries intended to provide a comprehensive answer to the questions below, which are paraphrased versions of questions I actually received. My hope is to provoke coherent thought about veganism and the abolitionist approach to animal rights... not provide specific anthropological or ethnological analyses. To the extent that these questions are probing possible inconsistencies or deficiencies within the abolitionist approach, I hope to show that they reveal none. Part One framed the discussion by reviewing the stark realities of the human relationship with non-human animals. Part Two provides a concise and accessible definition of rights. Part Three will utilize the definition developed within part two, and address the questions directly. Part Four will conclude the series by examining the concepts of necessity and tradition as related to the activities of indigenous cultures.

Questions: So you are somebody who thinks that animals have rights? But what about indigenous cultures? What about the tribes in Africa and Asia that must hunt and eat monkeys for survival?... or Arctic groups that rely upon fish and other sea-life they kill for food? What about the rights of these animals they are killing?

Considering the crux of these questions, we should look closer at rights before continuing. Most people have at least heard about rights. Note your probable recognition of these phrases: civil rights, human rights, women's rights, gay rights, workers' rights, disability rights, and reproductive rights. Remember that here in America, we even have something called the Bill of Rights, which (at least ostensibly) significantly enhances the lives of all American citizens.

So rights are rather common, but what are they? Simply stated: Rights are tools. We use them to protect interests, which can be anything that sentient creatures "want, desire, or prefer" [1]. Person-T prefers tennis, while person-Y prefers racquetball; but they both want more life, and more happiness. Things (like rocks, pencils, broccoli, and so on) are physically unable to "want, desire, or prefer"... so they have no interests. Rights protect the interests of sentient individuals, or groups thereof. Rights are not directly applicable to things, as things have no interests.

However, sentient creatures (like humans, for instance) can have interests that involve things. For example, group-K might be interested in preserving the local freshwater spring (or orchard, if you prefer). Group-K desires the continuation of everything it provides them (sustenance, beauty, recreation); this is the substance of their interest. Accepting the safeguard of this interest with a right... requires conserving the spring, and defending it from spoilage. A thing is being protected, but only because protection is the substance of group-K's interest. The spring does not have any intrinsic value, only the "extrinsic or conditional value" that we grant to it [1]. Group-K is not claiming that the spring itself has rights. Remember, springs (like all things) do not have subjective interests, so rights are inapplicable to them (per definition). But destroying the local spring would (from the perspective of group-K) violate their right to have it perpetuated.

Metaphorically speaking, a right places strong brick walls around an interest. Walls that cannot be broken down simply because it would provide some kind of benefit to the trespasser(s), or positive consequences generally. For example, person-J desires liberty. Suppose she lives where basic human rights [2] are well established. Almost no one around person-J would accept her being non-consensually slaughtered for food, made to donate organs, or compelled to undergo invasive procedures intended to help develop new medical treatments. These types of actions are rejected prima facie, regardless of any potential advantages or good outcomes.

Rights are only as powerful as the level of respect granted to them within society, or (more specifically) by those around the interest bearer. For example, person-J hopes that everyone will protect her liberty with a right. Suppose that 9.95/10 people around person-J choose to reject this right. Her liberty is seriously jeopardized within this scenario, and her enslavement is probably imminent. Likewise, 9.95/10 people around person-J could choose to accept this right. Her liberty is afforded protection within this scenario, and her enslavement is rather unlikely.

Rights are not necessarily absolute. For example, person-J could potentially forfeit her liberty. Suppose that person-J exhibited violent or otherwise disruptive behavior, meaning that she actively violated the socially accepted rights of others. By way of response, society (really factions or bodies thereof) could decide to break down the walls surrounding her liberty, perhaps leading towards imprisonment or mandated psychological treatment. Furthermore, despite full-heartedly agreeing with and abiding by basic human rights [2], person-W might actually kill and consume person-J... within the context of delirium brought-on by prolonged hunger and stress.

Okay, those are the basic points I would like to cover. Let's review them (in paragraph order) before concluding this entry. 1) Rights are tools that protect interests. Sentient creatures have interests, while things do not. 2) However, the substance of interests can certainly involve things, perhaps requiring their preservation. 3) Rights protect interests non-consequentially. Positive outcomes are insufficient justification for violation. 4) Rights need popular acceptance to effectively protect interests. 5) Rights are not absolute, at least to the extent that individuals can forfeit a right when they violate the rights of others... or lose their rational capacity during extremely desperate situations. Rights really aren't an elite concept, they are straightforward and practical. Stay tuned for part three, where I will employ and expound upon rights, coming soon.

[1] Clarifying the Meaning of a “Right” by Gary Francione

[2] With "basic human rights", my meaning is something along the lines of: baseline protection of our interest in being free from the imposition of bondage and violence. Not so incidentally, this closely mirrors my view of animal rights (humans are animals).

Recommendation + Rethinking Food

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

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.

[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 other such things.

[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

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.

Indigenous Cultures: Framing the Discussion (part one)

This is the first in a series of entries intended to provide a comprehensive answer to the questions below, which are paraphrased versions of questions I actually received. My hope is to provoke coherent thought about veganism and the abolitionist approach to animal rights... not provide specific anthropological or ethnological analyses. To the extent that these questions are probing possible inconsistencies or deficiencies within the abolitionist approach, I hope to show that they reveal none. Part One frames the discussion by reviewing the stark realities of the human relationship with non-human animals. Part Two will provide a concise and accessible definition of rights. Part Three will utilize the definition developed within part two, and address the questions directly. Part Four will conclude the series by examining the concepts of necessity and tradition as related to the activities of indigenous cultures.

Questions: So you are somebody who thinks that animals have rights? But what about indigenous cultures? What about the tribes in Africa and Asia that must hunt and eat monkeys for survival?... or Arctic groups that rely upon fish and other sea-life they kill for food? What about the rights of these animals they are killing?

Excellent questions, let's get started. Before evaluating the ethics of activities within any culture not our own, we must first acknowledge and account for our own lives. This does not prohibit us from maintaining and articulating thoughts about foreign events. But there are inescapable limits upon our sphere of influence that serve to regulate the efficacy of any such expressions. This is particularly true in the case of advocacy, where transcending barriers to communication, such as language and physical distance, is challenging enough to impose a major opportunity cost. Also, our ability to leverage moral authority directly hinges upon how seriously we take morality. Avoiding hypocrisy through ethical consistency is a prerequisite for advocates to be persuasive. Concerning the topic at hand, we are lead to ask the following introspective questions: Who am I and where do I live? What is my personal relationship with non-human animals? How about those people around me, and (more generally) my own culture?

Me and those around me: Nearly my entire life has transpired here within the "midwest" of America. Most everyone I regularly come into contact with, and most of the people I know on a more personal level, can say the same thing. Veganism is something I take very seriously, but the vast majority of those around me do not. Omnivores abound, while even an elementary understanding of the term vegan does not. Regardless, we all live in what could be described as a prosperous "western" nation. Let's take a closer look.

Here in America, the use of non-human animals is pervasive and normative. The most prevalent varieties run the complete gamut of human activity... sport, entertainment, companionship, experimentation, clothing, and food. Although every one of these animal use categories cause unnecessary death and misery, let's focus on just one aspect of one particular use: for food. The country in which I live slaughters over 9 billion chickens every single year [1]. America imports less that 1% of its chicken flesh, and exports only around 15% of its "production" (totaling around 5 billion pounds of dead bird parts) [2]. So the majority of this domestic chicken slaughter is done by us and for us, so to speak. Therefore, those omnivores around me, who eat the flesh and eggs of chickens, bear the burden of direct responsibility, without doubt. This includes people I would consider complete strangers, some members of my family, friends, coworkers, et cetera. Of course, the statistics and culpability are similar for the other animal species that we use for food... not to mention those five other categories of non-human animal exploitation.

The problem is almost unfathomably terrible. We are talking about the nearly ubiquitous, blind acceptance of completely unnecessary death and misery imposed upon sentient creatures. To do so accurately, mandates that we take measure of lives numbering in the millions, and often billions. Certainly not a minor task. That there are around one million humans in the greater metropolitan area of Cincinnati (where I live), represents a conceptual challenge. But the fact that my own country kills more chickens every year than there are humans in the entire world, is extraordinarily difficult to conceive.

What is annual sum total of non-human primates and sea creatures killed for food by indigenous groups within the Arctic, Africa, and Asia? As far as I know, quantification is not very practical here. But is it even plausible to assume the figure approaches the numerical use of a single species (say cows, chickens, or pigs) here in America alone? My feeling is an unqualified no. However, hypothetically assuming that they are equivalent, the tremendous opportunity cost of advocating against the foreign slaughter, stemming from barriers to communication, would still lead us to pursue local vegan education (following personal veganism, of course).

Without even broaching rights or looking outside of our borders, it should be clear that Americans (such as myself) have plenty to be concerned with. Demand for the spoils of animal exploitation, if not direct instances of use, is corporally represented (very concretely) by those around us. The opportunities for vegan education are passing us on the streets, shaking our hands, talking sports and politics with us, living with us, and so on. I believe that many other people, throughout the nations of this world, would acknowledge a very similar predicament where they live. Personally, as a very practical matter, my focus is upon dealing with me and mine, so to speak. This means my family, friends, coworkers, and others here in Cincinnati and throughout America.

Finally, whatever my thoughts are about the rights of animals killed by members of an indigenous culture in a distant part of the world (and whether necessity and tradition are appropriate justifications), they cannot possibly diminish the moral imperative of veganism, at least within my context, which is shared by those around me... whom I have the most potential to influence anyway. For more on these questions read Part Two, where I attempt to clarify rights.

[1] Up-to-date publicly available USDA statistic extracted from this PDF
[2] http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Poultry/Trade.htm

Brief Status Update

I am currently in the process of moving, though I work on the blog when able.

My email address in the "Correspondence" section of the right column was inaccurate for a while, but has been fixed. The ability to add comments is now available, just check the final footer of each post. I would love communication with anyone who might be reading. Anyway, I am pretty deep into work on two posts right now. One will address some questions surrounding indigenous cultures. The other will look at our supposed "need" to milk cows and sheer sheep.

Also, I really hope arrangements were made to record Gary Francione's segment on the Bill O'Reilly radio program earlier today. I was at work when it aired here in Cincinnati. I am assuming he was there to talk about the Michael Vick situation and media event. His discussion of it thus-far has been excellent [1]. When he first offered his perspective on the matter, I was literally excited for the next several hours. Just one of those "yes - finally" type feelings.

[1] First Blog Post / Second Blog Post / Michael Smerconish - Radio Interview

Our Moral Imperative

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.

[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.

VEGETARIAN Salads

Supplemental to my recent post entitled Ovo-Lacto Vegetarianism. Yesterday at work, I was in the cafeteria to get some fruit. While making my selections, I happened to notice the word "VEGETARIAN" printed very conspicuously on a sticker. It was attached to one of several plastic containers, each with a salad for one. They were absolutely smothered with dairy and egg, to put it lightly. I had to look closer just to confirm that they actually contained any lettuce. These salads were basically a handful of iceberg lettuce, one half covered with a layer of mozzarella cheese, the other with american cheese. Topping-off this macabre dish?.. a hard-boiled egg, with several diagonal slices revealing its yolk.

Our Zero-Sum Game

updated 10:17 PM on 8/13/07

Vegans pursuing outreach or education absolutely must confront the basic theoretical underpinnings of their approach. From the groups we affiliate with and support [1]... to the tools, strategies, and resources we utilize; careful analysis is warranted. To do otherwise is tantamount to sending confusing, ineffective, compromised, or unintended messages. The danger therein is paramount... steering the people we contact, and ultimately this "movement" [1], either nowhere or towards an undesirable end.

However, even for vegans who don't purposefully seek out engagement, social situations frequently ask that we represent the practices and concepts of veganism. Questions or accusations are invariably directed our way, and various other scenarios arise wherein we can voice opinions on, and give facts about, the human-nonhuman relationship. In the spirit of taking animal interests seriously, even if we don't pro-actively advocate veganism very often, we should be equipped to present our case thoughtfully and logically. The opportunities for outreach and education find us, when we aren't even looking for them. Let's be ready.

Taken broadly, we have two mutually exclusive options when discussing these issues. We can choose rational, honest arguments that reflect our values. Meaning we unequivocally promote veganism and the abolitionist approach to animal rights. Either that, or we can preemptively concede defeat [2] and choose dishonest arguments that compromise our values. Meaning we underestimate people's capacity for change [3], promote welfare reforms that are marginal and very costly, and subscribe to the oxymoronic concept of "conscientious omnivores".

Gary Francione has described this decision as zero-sum [4].

"[...] it is a zero-sum game. Every second of time and every cent of money spent on making exploitation more 'humane' is less money and time spent on vegan/abolitionist education."

Zero-sum games have fixed amounts of total points or rewards. Everything gained by one player, is necessarily lost by another. The gains and losses sum to zero. Player-X wins 22 points, so player-Z must lose 22 points. +22 and -22 sum to zero.

Regarding our outreach, education, and other social interactions or questions involving animal issues... we are always internally confronting a zero-sum scenario, which is comprised of two diametrically opposed approaches. The conclusions and corresponding actions we arrive at, might very well be quick and simple. But they collectively represent the future of our "movement", both its efficacy and moral orientation. The following examples should further demonstrate the concept of zero-sum.

Vegan-X educated people about welfarist reforms for 22 minutes, so vegan-X didn't engage in vegan/abolitionist education for 22 minutes. Vegan-Z urged omnivore-A to get a "free-range" turkey for Thanksgiving, so vegan-Z didn't unequivocally discuss why getting a turkey is not necessary at all [5].

[1] Supporting any of the large national organizations... seems to mean reaching for your checkbook. Check their websites. There is currently nothing in this country truly worthy of being considered an animal rights movement.

[2] This is not hyperbole. At least one popular welfarist, Erik Marcus, clearly thinks this way. Reference his debate with Gary Francione (1:45.18, 2:00.11, et cetera)

[3] Which implicitly degrades veganism by suggesting it is difficult or "fanatical".

[4] Found within this blog entry, beginning 5th paragraph from the end.

[5] Attempts at synthesizing both approaches will simply provide a clear path of less resistance ("humane" consumption). They will therefore, as a matter of human psychology, not operate much differently than unadulterated welfarism.

Cow Skin

Leather is a euphemism.

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarianism

updated 9:33 PM on 8/13/07

Vegetarians eat eggs and milk. Vegetarians are omnivores.

They uphold a distinction, but it is fairly meager, and carries no inherent ethical advantage as long as they consider milk and eggs acceptable foods [1~]. Eschewing only meat amounts to little more than a strange food preference. Something like an omnivore ethically opposed to grain... who eliminates only corn from their diet. A bizarre point of interest at best.

The logically consistent evolution of vegetarianism has been around (officially) for over 60 years, and the topic was discussed for decades before Donald Watson actually originated the term [2]. Yet vegans are currently a minor proportion of vegetarians, who represent just a few percentage points of the larger population. We clearly need to make up for lost time.

Most of the big national organizations refuse to accept veganism as a moral baseline, or do anything else with the possibility of alienating potential donors. Largely owing to this ongoing scenario, there are generally very few unequivocal voices heard on these matters. However, we have the ability to ignore these organizations, and make connections outside of them. The internet can definitely help us do that. But working locally with our families, friends, groups, and neighborhoods will certainly remain crucial. Fortunately these are not complicated issues.

There are no morally significant differences between any animal foods. Regarding ethics, health, and the environment... eggs and milk are essentially liquid meat [3]. Foods that probably involve more overall suffering than meat. Relative to their counterparts bred solely for flesh... milk cows and egg hens live longer and have more rigorous demands placed upon their bodies and reproductive systems. All to satiate our epicurean desires. In their respective industries: male chicks are killed instantly once identified (gassed, crushed, shredded); and male calves are chained up in veal crates after being stolen from their mothers. Nearly all chickens and cows, regardless of their primary designation, ultimately end up in the slaughterhouse, and become meat. Death and misery are innate, unavoidable aspects of all animal foods.

Vegetarians might eat fewer animal foods overall, relative to their habits as a meat-eater, or they might not [~1]. Many vegetarians merely increase their egg and dairy consumption after eliminating flesh. But supposing they do eat marginally fewer animal foods after becoming vegetarian... is this really progress, or anything resembling a coherent paradigm shift?

Even in the cases where vegetarians actually end up eating substantially fewer animal foods, the answer to the second question is most certainly no. Their inconsistency is still blatant, and the results are devastating. A fully conceived and logically extended recognition of animal sentience, is simply not present within vegetarians.

[2] Here is a copy of the first vegan newsletter, written by Donald Watson in 1944.

[3] Eggs and milk both occupy the same food-chain trophic level as meat. Similar environmentally destructive inefficiencies are thereby necessarily entailed. Eggs and milk are loaded with saturated fat, cholesterol, animal protein, hormones, antibiotics, dioxins, PCBs, et cetera... and have little to no antioxidants, dietary fiber, or iron.