I've been looking into veganism a lot lately, and though I remain unconvinced, I still find myself fascinated by it for one simple reason – the momentum it appears to be gaining within atheist circles, that is to say, it appears to be overwhelmingly seen as the next logical step in morality, even though among those same people, morality isn't defended as being objective. That is not to fall into the extremes that atheist or otherwise secular views of morality are therefore non-existent, or that atheists are categorically evil, but secular thinking does seem to presuppose a different paradigm of morality because under naturalistic or materialistic worldviews it's very difficult, or even impossible, to find a solid basis for it. Thus morality is more or less seen as being derived from any basic statements we can make about quality of life, namely the maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering, preferably wherever it is found. In a way it makes a lot of sense because we can appeal to nature and consider certain actions as obviously immoral, such as murder, because if we all murdered freely, the human race would die out. Nature simply doesn't want us to die out so it gave us some distaste for death, at least she did to most us but that's a whole other story for another day... Thing is, if morality is essentially that, then I don't quite see why it would apply to all animals, and more than that, I don't get why people for whom morality can't be said to be objective expect me, an animal, to go out of my way to care about other animals.
So then, starting from morality and going down the list, leaving the most vain argument for last, I find myself searching for the philosophical basis for veganism, and of course, as with the moral basis for everything else in this world, I find it lacking. I am inevitably and categorically an animal, I am a living organism just like any other, I have organs and instincts like any other beast, some animals even have organs very much similar to mine, I am simply part of the animal kingdom, and yet I'm now being told to not act like an animal... That bit always confuses me. Vegans talk about speciesism and about wanting to shake the foundation for ideas of human exceptionalism because a true moral philosophy has to include non-human animals. But if we aren't exceptional, why should I act as though I am? At the risk of prematurely venturing into the third argument, why should I deny my pleasures, assuming they aren't instincts, if the lion won't deny his? You might say if I want to act like a lion I'd have to do some very distasteful things lions often do, but that's of course beside the point. I don't aim to mimic all aspects of lions, likewise I don't aim to mimic all aspects of the animal kingdom, but I do mean to mimic the main ones. How specific animals behave is their business, but I'm pretty sure feeding, sleeping and mating are universal across the board. In those three areas we are all, more or less, on the same boat. So why do I have to place a moral weight on my feeding when no other animal does?
You might say it's because it causes suffering and we humans have the capacity to choose. But if so then I'd say that already shatters the “name the trait” argument and proves human exceptionalism. In my view, the capacity to choose to be vegan out of a sense of morality can be seen as proof of human superiority and it's therefore something that set us aside from other animals. Then, as far as suffering goes, I could facetiously claim feeding doesn't cause any suffering, or rather it does but only as a side effect. The lion doesn't strike with the intent to hurt the gazelle, he runs, assaults and bites her neck with the intention to subdue her, kill her and eat her. The suffering is simply a result of nature's rules, it's a mere side effect. With us humans the logic is likewise the same, it's simply not my fault that nature created the world, so to speak, with the rule that nutrients have to come from living things, and that ironically those same living things tend to be able to suffer. Indeed, nature appears to have suffering inherently built into it, which is a very bizarre idea and obviously not one we are inclined to like or approve of... but it is one we have to accept. Otherwise what can we do? We can't outcast nature, we can't wait until election year and vote for somebody else. Nature is simply the way things work and will always work. You don't have to like it, I sure don't and if I was in charge I'd try to make things differently, but alas...
Still, pragmatically speaking, isn't society overwhelmingly in favor of animal rights? Vegans can't say yes to that without seeing a distinct and well-spotted hypocrisy. Because it's very easy to find instances of people taking a very aggressive stance against some forms of animal cruelty but not others. In other words, a person caught on camera kicking a dog will be universally despised, whereas the person caught on camera slashing a cow's throat will be seen as just a worker doing his or her job. Then we cry for Bambi's mom but we'd still eat her flesh, and Bambi's too while we're at it, we then justify our culinary interests with appeals to nature but we get shocked when we come across a video of a green anaconda being fed live chicks... It don't make much sense indeed, but while vegans see this moral hypocrisy as something of a disconnect between our actions and our moral values, I see it as the vast majority of people, myself included, being removed from the natural processes that happen behind our kitchens. Hell, just today I caught a few minutes of a TV program where a restaurant owner was talking about how very few people nowadays want to learn the process of skinning a rabbit because they find it distasteful... So which is wrong? Our cognitive and moral dissonance or the natural truth of how the bacon is made? Well, no matter how you slice it, I don't quite see how you can claim nature is the one who's wrong here.
On that note I have to bring up the olive branch often offered to vegans, namely the idea that conditions in factory farming require a complete overhaul in favor of animal well-being. That does make a lot of sense because we're all in agreement about minimizing suffering, only difference is that vegans believe this minimization can and should go much further than just improving conditions, it has to be achieved by ceasing all consumption and usage of animal products because even if the animal lives a great life, the act of killing it in the end is still immoral. So it could be that factory farming is very far removed from the natural truth of how bacon is made, it's not natural per say but that appears to be merely a manifestation of human ingenuity, and being able to tell at which point a human invention ceases to be nature is a question up for debate and far beyond my understanding... Which brings us to our second point, because if vegans often bring up that humans aren't meant to eat meat because we don't have the capacity to kill an animal with our bare hands, then it has to be said that without technology we also don't have the capacity to grow fruits and vegetables in massive quantities, out of season no less, or to refrigerate and export them all around the world. If the morality of meat eating dies by technology, then so does veganism. The world appears to be built in such a way that to eat whatever is available is quite easier than to specifically eat vegan, which means that until we see a vegan world, or even a vegan country, not being vegan is simply more convenient.
So why should I sacrifice my convenience? And what other animal in nature would sacrifice his convenience out of love for other animals?... I think it's safe to say everyone hopes to make their lives easier, not harder, and while my life could improve if I were to break some laws, I'd be harming someone else's life and I'd be caught. Thus it makes sense for me to sacrifice my “convenience” for the sake of others because I'm better off working alongside them anyway. But animals have no such luxury, so why would anyone go out of their way to improve the lives of animals even at a personal cost? Maybe if veganism improves and gains traction there will come a day when the paradigm shifts, a day when eating meat is actually more inconvenient than eating a vegan diet, but until then why is the sacrifice of convenience considered morally sound? Why should I live my life worrying about every single thing I put in my belly, or every single piece of clothing I put over my back, or even every single bit of entertainment I like? Because my life is demonstrably simpler if I don't worry about any of these things, and I don't plan to stop loving Apocalypse Now any time soon just because there's a scene of animal sacrifice in it. And why should I? I find myself in a world where food and products derived from animals are entirely overwhelming, they are so deeply ingrained in our everyday lives that vegans often end their passionate speeches by mentioning the dietary transition into veganism, though I find they tend to oversimplify the issue. I'm not the slightest bit convinced the transition would be that easy and, from what I can gather, without a deep moral conviction, most people eventually falter and give it all up.
Obviously vegans would claim my everyday actions are immoral, but are they really? As I said, I find your lack of objective morality disturbing... And even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that they are indeed immoral, so what? The rule of law is in my favor, and if it ever changes it's likely to change at a time when I'm no longer alive. Can vegans then condemn me to hell for my actions? Can they say there's a vegan god who will punish me? Can they resurrect me only to torture me in vegan hellfire?... I honestly don't mean to sound confrontational or flippant but what can I do? Even if society changes completely and my words are to be seen as wholly outdated and morally inferior, even if my memory is to one day be collectively reviled by everyone in the future as the worst man who's ever lived, so what? I won't be around to see it... The world isn't vegan, restaurants and supermarkets are stocked to the brim with flesh, secretions and periods, as vegans like to say, so I am therefore a victim of my time... Well, so be it.
And that leaves us taste... Even if it ever becomes perfectly convenient to go vegan, what if people simply don't enjoy the taste of vegan food, or they simply don't enjoy eating fruits and vegetables all that often? Ignoring all previous considerations I wanna argue that, as long as the moral foundation for veganism is weak, taste still remains a difficult argument to ignore. And that is because it's an inherently subjective experience, and if morality itself is subjective, that poses a bit of a problem, doesn't it? I know secular morality isn't necessarily relativistic, and the term “moral nihilism” doesn't quite point us to a Mad Max society, not right away at least, but I still find it difficult to concede the moral high ground. And furthermore, even granting some points I wouldn't otherwise grant, I wanna play along into hedonism and paint a little picture... Under a secular view of existence, I just so happened to be born pretty much randomly, I am an animal just like any other and I live according to my nature. As such, I'm extremely limited in oh so many ways. For example, I'll never ever get to know what it feels like to attend a fancy cocktail party after which I'd find myself in bed with two stunning supermodels, I'll never ever get to know what it feels like to own a mansion as big as a small village, I'll never ever get to know what it feels like to score a stunning free kick in minute eighty-eight of the champions league finale... There are endless amazing things I'll never ever get to experience before I'm dead, and after I die I won't exist anymore and none of it will have mattered anyway, I simply won't be around to see it. And now, of all those pleasures, all those great experiences so many people had and will have but I never will, I'm now even being denied the pleasure of a cheeseburger?...
The argument would be that the cheeseburger, unlike those other pleasures, depending on who you ask, is immoral, but that just brings us back to the beginning, doesn't it? If morality is subjective, or rather, if morality isn't objective, then I don't quite see why the shift to veganism is seen as forward progress instead of just another turn in this seemingly circular thing that is history. Thus I see vegans as being up against it, almost as if they are perpetually swimming against the current. Demographically speaking, vegans don't seem to appeal to objective morality, and I believe the percentage of religious vegans to be quite low. So they can't really claim that to harm an animal is objectively immoral. But then again, if they did adhere to a particular religion they'd have a hard time claiming that all the instances of animal sacrifice or consumption depicted in holy books are irreligious... It's an interesting position indeed, and one I don't partake in because, without an appeal to a standard of objective morality, which would typically be God, I can't say veganism is objectively more moral, even if reducing suffering seems to be such a categorically good thing. Because nature is a cruel lady, what ought to be is very seldom what actually is. I very much doubt nature cares, and if eating animal products really is all that destructive, then she will take care of us in due time.
As for me, would I ever go vegan? For the time being absolutely not because as far as convenience goes, namely economic convenience, I can't. As far as taste goes, while I enjoy some foods, I can actually live well without them, seeing as gastronomy was never really my thing. But at the end of the day I just don't see why I have to make such a significant change in my life when my individual actions would have almost zero impact on the world. I'd once again facetiously claim that even not being a vegan, no animals are killed when I eat meat. They weren't killed specifically because of little old me, they were going to be killed either way and if I hadn't bought their flesh, someone else would have... This is why I admire the resilience of vegans, because if my counters against morality, convenience and taste all fail, I'll still have the infamous and very powerful arguments of “I don't care” and “why bother” to which, in a subjective world, there kinda is no answer.
Comments
Post a Comment