Rational Reasons For Veganism

Question

Veganism has an image problem.

Ask anybody what thoughts the word veganism conjures up and chances are that most people will mention the word ‘hippie’ in their response. Being vegan is associated with a counterculture that is based on a stereotype of free-love, flowers-in-the-hair and peaceful anarchy. Vegans are seen as soft, out of touch with reality and idealists. They are seen as sentimental animals lovers and tree-huggers. For a lot of people this is more than enough to turn them off veganism for life.

But here’s the thing – you don’t have to be any of these things to become vegan. You certainly don’t have to be a hippie, but you don’t even necessarily have to be an animal ‘lover’ in its purest form. The arguments that validate and justify veganism aren’t all sentimental – they are rational, logical and firmly based in science and philosophy. I would argue that anybody who considers themselves to be an intelligent human should be vegan by default.

When I first considered going vegan I’d certainly experienced feelings of empathy and compassion towards animals, but i realised that to make such a permanent and profound change I had to be fully convinced of my decision, or else i’d never be able to keep it up. This required something more complete than hippie idealism.

I’ve never been particularly sentimental, my mind usually works in a straightforward, logical manner. I definitely have an affinity for some things in the spiritual and psychedelic realm, but I tend to take a rational approach to most issues. Now, I understand that in strict Philosophical fields the terms ‘rational and ‘logical’ are separate, but lets treat them as synonyms here.

So how does this tie in with veganism?

Well, it’s rational to respect the basic rights of other beings. Forgive the religious reference (I am an atheist) but “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” makes perfect sense. If you believe that you have the right to be treated with respect and ethical consideration for your rights, then the least you can do is extend that courtesy to others. Otherwise the whole system collapses.

The most basic of these rights is our right to life – we want to live and nobody should be able to take our life away from us. This would be considered the most heinous violation of a person’s rights. Furthermore, we also want to live a life free from pain and suffering and thus we believe that nobody should be allowed to harm us or enslave us. I’m sure that all of you would agree that you possess these basic rights and are entitled to have them respected by others.

Most of you would also agree that it’s equally important to respect the rights of others, otherwise we fall into hypocrisy and contradiction. But why does this circle of ethical consideration only extend to other humans? Why do we believe that the life of a human has more innate value than the life of an animal? After all, we are just another species of animal, so why do the rights of other humans trump the rights of non-human animals?

The fact of the matter is this; a non-human animal values its life as much as you value your life and all animals feel physical pain and emotional suffering. If the justification for respecting another person’s right to life hinges simply on the fact that that person wants to live, then in the words of Ingrid Newkirk; “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”. There is no difference between an animal and a human.

Humans have fallen into an egotistical pit of self-importance. We seem to believe that our lives have an innate value that makes us more important than any other species. There is no doubt that we are an amazingly intelligent species. But intelligence should not be a factor in determining how much value a life has – what about severely mentally disabled people? Surely our intelligence should be lifting us out of barbaric behaviour, not enable us to exploit other beings.

A lot of these ideas I picked up from Peter Singer’s excellent book “Animal Liberation”. This seminal piece of literature puts forward a comprehensive picture of the emotional and psychological capacity of non-human animals. Contrary to the general understanding of animals, they have profound capabilities to think and appreciate their lives. They can experience pain, fear, grief and love. Most importantly of all, they WANT to live, just like us.

So what’s the difference between the life of a human and an animal at its most basic level? There is none. The animals wants to live, just like you want to live. The animal wants to be free from pain, just like you want to be free from pain. And if you think it’s okay to violate these rights, then why should anybody be stopped from violating your own right to life and non-suffering?

In the words of 18th Century philosopher Jeremy Bentham; “The question is not ‘can they reason’, nor ‘can they talk?’ but ‘can they suffer?’.

More articles @ www.ahimsa-vegan.com

MickPeslo · Answer

Righto.
Veganism has an image problem within the wider community mainly due to the depressed state and single issue zealousness exhibited by most vegans. For instance the impression of most vegan females as completely joyless, skinny, pale and duds in bed are alive and well. 
Until we manage to overcome societies prejudices (and its truly up to us, whining won't accomplish anything) then we won't accomplish anything. We need to excite the general public into wanting to follow veganism...

woopie · Answer

A cleaned version, a part of what I was trying to communicate for long: 

cattle="human"
#vegan #veganworldday

Method {
1. Addictive binding agent attached for continuous return to a point.
2. Brainwash, shape thinking, insert effect lingually etc.
3. Feed on/farm: habits, lingual growth, ideas, tech access, microbiology.
4. Dispersement medium
}

herwin · Answer

vegans have a bad reutation and dont blame society or the media for it. in general serious vegans and serious organisations get a fair coverage in the media. In contrast, the crazy vegans and groups like Peta get very bad coverage. Peta unfortunately is into designing 'controversial' topics just to generate a lot of media buzz.  So Peta gets a lot of media attention with a lot of clicks to their website, and donations from their Peta base who love it to cause a stir amongst the 'meateaters', and the ordinaryv vegans and serious activists lose bc once again they are depicted as wacky crazy people, thanks to Peta.

JoshuaPullen · Answer

^Name one serious, Vegan, animal rights organization fully equipped with lawyers that comes even close to doing as much good for animals as PeTA.
Your problem is with the wrong organization.

Ahisma_Tim thank you for the beautiful post, I happen to agree that there is a seriously skewed image of Vegans quite contrary to the reality. Hippie, flower, in the hair types have the tendency to be hypocrites. Preaching a message of peace but still consuming animals. Not cool.

O0DEF6bJg1 · Answer

To add to that:

There is no rational reason to not be vegan.

However there are paths to veganism - not overall sacrificing veganism. Like minimalism indirectly decrease consumption massively. For some that is possible and not overall draining like logical power of vegan rationales (exposure draining arguments of power; rationalization growing).

A danger is "pushing through to actually overcome the situation" - veganism is not only about animals living now: also beings (like AI) centuries or billions of years from now. Like internet upheld by partial consumption of dairy and growth of excess used to grow veganism (everything is relative; its like breathing - trees oxygen production come with a productionline also (perceive externally to this reality structure). 
Exactly therefore to not practice cannibalism is a great thing; decreasing non caring and loss of empathy for fellow beings as well as ability to navigate by the inefficiency of non veganism.

Excess come from not earning and like workaholism partially from abuse of me and inability to cope with situation and loss of trustable situation with much of civilization; including where I would be suggested going to deal with this - severe danger by close proximity and pull in direction of danger. Would be neat if vegan psychologists etc. was norm however all those drugs and locking people (animal testing and addiction +jailing (cattle is jailed)) block that growth. Issue described now uncloggable. I dislike writing all the time; I really want to live life.

marlicious · Answer

I am distrusting the "rationalist" movement, I am convinced that ethics and empathy can't be reached through cold, hard logic alone. Besides that, I hate the misconception that wanting a better world (a bit better, not perfect) and believing in the possibility doesn't make you automatically a dreamer immune to reality. I think if you see the world we are living in as the only possible one, then you're excusing our failing system!

NinaSimon · Answer

Yes very true. And if you look into it, you realize that there are tons of other reasons that we should be going vegan. Veganism is an idea whose time has come.
"No army can stop an idea whose time has come."

DamianArgent · Answer

I'd like to see some one walk up to vegan UFC fighters Nick Diaz or Jake Shields and call them pale faced sickly looking hippies who are out of touch with reality. Just saying it'd be funny is all. Im not sure why some people instantly assume vegans are weaklings, not me, maybe it's a meat eaters thing? I'd agree that sadly some vegans do look like they're lacking nutes and need a good meal, however when you compare them to vegan athletes it tells me that maybe some peops just take it too seriously or maybe are misinformed as to how to eat well.

Search HappyCow

Animal Rights Forum