Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[Nursefoxfire]

As an offshoot of the Honey discussion here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123089, I read an article referenced in that thread on why honey isn't vegan: http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm .

That vegan site, and other talks I've had with vegan / raw foodists, has led to some puzzlements for me.

1. According to vegan philosophy: no animal should view itself as “higher” or “lower” than any other animal
2. The vegan believes that it is wrong to eat products of, or the actual animals themselves
3. Animal kingdom example: The anteater gorges itself on ants
4. Humans originally ate what food was available: fruits and vegetables, grains, and meat
5. What changed our thinking so that some humans now believe it is wrong to eat animals? (in other words: how did we get to this point?)
6. Do we think the anteater is inferior to us and therefore makes “exploitative” decisions on what to eat? And in that case, doesn’t that go against the philosophy in #1?
7. If a person lives in the wilderness, traps and kills his own meat, grows his own grains and vegetables, and doesn’t “exploit” the animal kingdom for his own gains, is that acceptable?

If that above example is acceptable, then doesn’t it seem as if the real problem vegans have with meat-eating humans isn’t WHAT they eat, but the way in which it is grown / harvested?

As an example: here’s an extract from that vegan article on why honey shouldn’t be eaten by humans (the bees are exploited and kept in slavery):

Needless to say, the Langstroth hive caught on very quickly and is the hive of choice today. New technology is on the horizon that allows even greater efficiency in extracting honey (Lomas). So if a beekeeper tells you that they are only continuing an ancient tradition, keep in mind that the practices they are using are only 100 years old and are radically different from the methods that existed for millennia. They also have nothing in common with non-Western beekeeping methods that emphasize humility, respect, and truly being part of nature, as opposed to managing nature for human gain.

Bolding mine

 

[madurobob]

non-Western beekeeping methods that emphasize humility, respect, and truly being part of nature, as opposed to managing nature for human gain

That's a common view I see in my vegan colleagues. Western=evil, non-Western=Good. Or, actually, everything evil is "Western", everything non evil is "non-Western". For instance; anything evil that happens in Tibet is the result of "western influences".

What do these people have against Gene Autry?

Also, what we choose to eat is as much an emotional decision as anything else. So, you won't find a lot of logic in it. Neither will you find that all vegans explain their rationale the same way. Ditto for all carnivores, omnivores, etc...

As a self described "redneck vegetarian" your item #7 appeals to me. Points 1 and 2 I consider useless. I happily rank animals. Dogs are pretty high on the list. Spiders who spin webs across the woodland trails where I run are pretty low.

FWIW I kept "enslaved" bees for several years. Anyone who has done so knows this is much more of a symbiotic relationship than it is slavery.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm a vegetarian (not a vegan), but I can at least respond to a couple of your points.

The behavior of the anteater (or lion or chimpanzee or whatever) makes no moral argument for human behavior. Non-human animals do plenty of things that we would consider immoral or at the very least socially unacceptable.

Similarly, the argument about what humans did in the past is also not persuasive. In the past humans kept slaves, for example, but now we acknowledge that that is (and was) wrong.

For me, I start with the premise that killing animals is wrong unless there is sufficient justification. I don't consider taste preference or convenience to be sufficient justification.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Also, what we choose to eat is as much an emotional decision as anything else. So, you won't find a lot of logic in it. Neither will you find that all vegans explain their rationale the same way. Ditto for all carnivores, omnivores, etc...

But I was really looking for logic!

As a self described "redneck vegetarian" your item #7 appeals to me.

So you're a vegetarian Ted Nugent? What exactly IS a redneck vegetarian?

FWIW I kept "enslaved" bees for several years. Anyone who has done so knows this is much more of a symbiotic relationship than it is slavery.

My dad was a beekeeper for decades on our farm. We also raised all our own meat, grains and fruits / veggies. I loved the whole peaceful tranquility of beekeeping, and my dad never got stung.

 

[martu]

1. According to vegan philosophy: no animal should view itself as “higher” or “lower” than any other animal
2. The vegan believes that it is wrong to eat products of, or the actual animals themselves
3. Animal kingdom example: The anteater gorges itself on ants
4. Humans originally ate what food was available: fruits and vegetables, grains, and meat
5. What changed our thinking so that some humans now believe it is wrong to eat animals? (in other words: how did we get to this point?)
6. Do we think the anteater is inferior to us and therefore makes “exploitative” decisions on what to eat? And in that case, doesn’t that go against the philosophy in #1?
7. If a person lives in the wilderness, traps and kills his own meat, grows his own grains and vegetables, and doesn’t “exploit” the animal kingdom for his own gains, is that acceptable?

1. How are they getting on telling that to Lions?
2. Please see 1)
3. It would die if it didn't
4. A sensible survival strategy, please see the Giant Panda for a problematic diet
5. Our greatest mutation, our large brains, has led to some silly ideas is all.
6. It does go against 1) yes but no I don’t think it is inferior just different
7. I doubt it even though it's more ethical than most vegan diets who rely on food being transported halfway around the globe

 

[madurobob]

For me, I start with the premise that killing animals is wrong unless there is sufficient justification. I don't consider taste preference or convenience to be sufficient justification.

For me its more about necessity. Taste and convenience are not sufficient justification, as you point out. But they are not sufficient because of the wide variety of alternatives that make killing an animal unnecessary. However, if it came down to survival, I'd kill & eat the animal out of necessity.

I have hunted deer in the past and probably will sometime in the future. I've managed to rationalize it in a variety of ways:

• Hunting for protein could become a necessity at some point. Its a good skill to have.
• The deer herd in NC is at an all-time high (since records have been kept - 1903) and thinning the herd is good for humans and deer.
• I use nearly every part of the animal. Eat the meat, tan the hide, feed some of the bones to the dogs, compost the rest.
• The animal ran free its entire life. No cages, no hormone injections, no antibiotics, etc...

I could come up with more if pushed, but those are the key ones.

Again, I think expecting people to be entirely logical in their food choices is inappropriate. Its an emotional decision and not entirely open to logic.

 

[Vic Vega]

For me, I start with the premise that killing animals is wrong unless there is sufficient justification.

Agreed, though I think a NY Strip steak is more than enough justification, as is leather and other products we use that come from animals. We are at the top of the food chain and should eat and use whatever our cultures allow us to eat and use.

That being said, there should be rules. We shouldn't eat endangered species, we should treat animals in the food supply as humanely as possible, we should waste as little as possible, etc.

I respect people who are vegetarians and vegans, though it makes no sense to me personally. I only have a problem when they are either hypocritical or try to force their agenda on me.

 

[Vic Vega]

As an example: here’s an extract from that vegan article on why honey shouldn’t be eaten by humans (the bees are exploited and kept in slavery)

You mean we have to pay them now?!?!?!

Where will they keep their money?

 

[madurobob]

So you're a vegetarian Ted Nugent? What exactly IS a redneck vegetarian?

Ouch.

Redneck vegetarian: Vegetarian but for the occasional meat I eat from my hunting/fishing trips. You should see the looks I get when a hunting buddy offers me some beef jerky as we scout the woods. "No thanks, I'm a vegetarian." Talk about cognitive dissonance.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

For me, I start with the premise that killing animals is wrong unless there is sufficient justification.

What is your premise based on? Why is killing animals wrong? What is sufficient justification?

I understand your premise but I am interested in how you arrive at the judgment that killing animals is wrong.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I respect people who are vegetarians and vegans, though it makes no sense to me personally. I only have a problem when they are either hypocritical or try to force their agenda on me.

I have no respect for vegetarians or vegans just because they are vegetarian or vegan. Why would anyone "respect" that? I don't expect vegetarians to respect me because I am an omnivore (well I hate fish and broccoli so I guess I am an almost-omnivore) even though that makes me way better than them morally.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

You mean we have to pay them now?!?!?!

Where will they keep their money?

After the giggle, I actually thought about what you wrote more seriously, and that brought up another vague question for me.

We get goods from other people, where we pay them in money or trade or barter. Why can't we view our relationship with bees and cow as such? My dad's apiary was wonderful, set into an apple orchard, constantly monitored to make sure the bees had a happy, safe home. We never "fed" them crappy sugar water, they were free to come and go as they pleased, and I remember one time they took the swarm and left. But most of the time Dad made a home that any bee would be proud to live in, and many of them chose to stay there.

 

[madurobob]

What is your premise based on? Why is killing animals wrong? What is sufficient justification?

I understand your premise but I am interested in how you arrive at the judgment that killing animals is wrong.

As for me, its based ultimately on anthropomorphizing. Animals appear to feel pain, express emotions, have faces, etc... I can empathize with the pain they must feel at being treated cruelly.

So, similar to the reasons we have animal cruelty laws. Similar to the reasons why dog fighting is illegal.*

Sufficient justification = survival

*ETA: though I've gotten into fights for suggesting Mike Vick did nothing any more morally repugnant than many meat producers. He just did it with dogs rather than cows, pigs or chickens and dogs are considered "higher" forms of life here in the US.

 

[madurobob]

Why can't we view our relationship with bees and cow as such?

I always had troubles getting them to sign the contract.

 

[volatile]

We just did a huge thread on this, entitled "Admit it, animals have rights". I'd suggest everyone parse that before further comment here - it'll save those of us here who are vegans (Cain, me, Princess and a couple of others) from re-stating stuff we've already argued at length this month, and to avoid strawmen.

 

[martu]

As for me, its based ultimately on anthropomorphizing. Animals appear to feel pain, express emotions, have faces, etc... I can empathize with the pain they must feel at being treated cruelly.

One can keep animals for slaughter without being cruel to them.

 

[madurobob]

One can keep animals for slaughter without being cruel to them.

Quite true in my mind. But, it all depends on how one defines "cruel." The chicken and hog farms I've visited in NC don't come close to "raising animals for slaughter without being cruel."

Now, per Volatile, I'm off to peruse that other thread I had glanced at and decided to avoid previously.

 

[volatile]

One can keep animals for slaughter without being cruel to them.

Except some would argue that the act of slaughter is inherently cruel. As I said, I'd recommend the other thread for a lot more of that line of argument.

 

[martu]

Quite true in my mind. But, it all depends on how one defines "cruel." The chicken and hog farms I've visited in NC don't come close to "raising animals for slaughter without being cruel."

What was wrong with how they were kept?

Now, per Volatile, I'm off to peruse that other thread I had glanced at and decided to avoid previously.

I've skimmed that thread but I was too late to contribute so missed all the fun. It's very long btw, very, very long.

 

[IMST]

Ethical decision. We're all entitled to them. I've chosen vegetarianism (not a vegan) because it fits my ethics well enough. I would like to make the transition to being a vegan, but I know that I do not have the skills or time to do it in a manner that would be healthy for me.