Sunday, 6 January 2019

Veganuary is murder



January has become the new Lent. First we were encouraged to give up alcohol. Then we were encouraged to give up meat and become vegans for a month. Finally there is apparently some virtue in failing to shave your legs. Next year, no doubt, we will all have to change gender for a month just to see how it feels. Hopefully this will not involve any form of surgery.


There is something peculiar in the idea that my doing or failing to do anything for a month will make any difference. Even giving up alcohol or meat forever would probably have only a marginal effect on our longevity. Lots of boozing carnivores live to be very old indeed and can living for an extra five years or so really be the most important goal in life? If you had the choice between an extra five years in a care home not quite knowing where and who you were, or steak and red wine now, would you really go for the care home?

But I don’t thing we are being nannied into being a puritan for a month because the state cares that much about our longevity. It’s more about finding a new Church with priests to tell us not to vote for Brexit, not to be concerned as our country changes beyond all recognition and above all not to think for ourselves because Nanny knows best.

How do you feel virtuous in a society that no longer believes in religion? Well how about trying to save the planet by giving up meat, becoming indignant when anyone says anything that they shouldn’t and above all changing the rules such that whatever was considered by almost everyone to be wrong is now virtuous while something that was considered permissible by everyone is now vice.

I doubt very much that giving up meat will save the planet. The problem is that eating mainly vegetables for much of the world is not an ethical decision, but rather a matter of income. As the world becomes richer, more and more people move away from eating cabbage soup and kasha every day. A few wealthy western vegans are not going to change this. As China builds more power stations to supply the energy which its newly wealthy consumers demand, it won’t matter how many windmills we build or how much we recycle. Still less will it matter if you give up meat.

But some people might think that others will follow their Veganuary example and even if they don’t it is worth giving up meat because killing animals is wrong.

The traditional justification for eating animals is that human beings are qualitatively different from the meat that we eat. It is for this reason likewise that there has been a near universal taboo about cannibalism. While killing people is considered to be murder, killing animals is justified because they are lesser beings.

What can this difference consist in? Some arguments have been that human beings are unique and irreplaceable while the loss of one animal can be compensated for another. It is for this reason that animals can be owned, bought and sold.

The vegan argument is that there is no qualitative difference between people and animals, because we are all in fact animals. People may be more intelligent that dogs but it is simply a sliding scale. There is no decisive difference between people and other animals just a difference of degree. For this reason just as it was wrong to own slaves owing to racism, so too it is wrong to own and eat animals owing to speciesism.

The major difficulty with this argument is that if it is wrong for people to kill animals then it must be wrong for animals to kill animals. But if it is wrong for people and animals to kill animals then we all should be punished for doing so. The difficulty here is that if a dog kills a baby we would not think it sensible to send the dog to a court and if convicted of murder send the dog to jail. Why don’t we do this? The reason is that dogs are not moral beings. They don’t understand the difference between right and wrong. They did not, so to speak, eat from the tree of knowledge.  

Animals can be trained and some domestic animals can give the appearance of caring for their masters. They can seem guilty if they do wrong. But we do not hold them morally to account for their actions. It would be morally senseless to try a dog for theft if it stole food from a shop even if it looked guilty afterwards.

But here is the distinction between people and animals that the vegans must claim does not exist if they are to forbid us from eating animals. The distinction is that people are moral beings and that animals are not. It is this distinction that traditionally meant that people were considered to have souls, while animals did not.

The futility of veganism is shown from the fact that animals will continue to kill each other whether we refrain from doing so or not. But these vegans care not at all that foxes kill chickens and in no way condemn the fox for doing so. But if foxes can kill chickens, why can’t people? Either animals are justified in killing each other, in which case what is preventing us from joining in, or only people must refrain from killing animals on the grounds that only people are morally capable of choosing not to do so. But our refraining from killing animals for a month shows precisely the superiority over animals, that justifies our killing them the next month. Veganuary is therefore self-indulgent and self-defeating.

If everyone in Britain gave up meat the result would not be that we saved the lives of millions of animals. Rather all of those farm animals living in Britain would instantly be slaughtered and sold to countries which continued to eat them.

We have reached a stage of decadence where the same people who are quite happy for human beings at the very beginning or the very end of their lives to be terminated, are morally outraged that we eat chickens. Something that human beings have done since human beings first began must be condemned. Soon the vegans will write about Uncle Rover’s Cabin and condemn the slaveholders who won’t free their dogs. But that will be next January.

13 comments:

  1. The vegan argument of no qualitative difference could just as easily be used to justify cannibalism, is that what is called a double edged sword.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My wife and I had a similar discussion a few weeks ago ... Only not quite so succinct. Thanks, Effie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Once again, Effie manifests her superb mastery of the ad hominem and the non sequitur!

    I've shown this piece to several vegans. They were all, of course, rather amused. One of them, however, was rather concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever the differences in the opinions of the vegans to whom I have sent this piece, *none* of them holds any of the views that she ascribes to them. Evidently, the person who related these allegations to her was misinformed.

      Delete
    2. As far as we know, we are the only species on Earth capable of perceiving ethically. (If we discover that other species have such a capability the, clearly, we shall have to revise a lot of our ideas.) It is submitted that we can and must endeavour to act in accordance with such perceptions.

      Delete
    3. Vegans hold to many different religious and philosophical positions. What they have in common is a regard for animal welfare, and the dietary, health, economic, and ecological consequences of large-scale industrialized agriculture.

      Delete
    4. Given this, and the entirely benign outcomes that would derive from an increased adoption of veganism, one vegan I know is concerned at the recent surge of angry outbursts against vegans and their dietary options. This is from one aspect rather funny, but the sight of the angry crowd outside a Greggs shop selling vegan (inter alia) delicacies was rather disturbing. It reminds one of Peter Ustinov's remark about the monocyclists.

      Delete
  4. It’s all part of the New Puritanism spreading across the World, they have no religion so thiey replace established Religious doctrine with a weirder mixture of “feelings” and Pseudo morality , completely immune to logic or common sense

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike stories of a beardy bloke who lives in the sky, attended by his winged minions, who went zap and created the entire world. Nothing weird about that.

      More pertinently,I've yet to meet a vegan who considered their simple choice to avoid animal products as a religion. The accusation seems to have more to do with the accuser's desire to "other" the people they consider a threat to their own lifestyle. How better than to make them seem like a strange cult?

      Still not considering veganism myself.

      Delete
  5. I am as sceptical of veganism as most, but the arguments put forward in this article are, frankly, non-sense. Some of the points being made were jaw-dropping in their naievity and disregard for basic logic. I am not even considering going vegan however, if I were, this article would have me thinking "If this is the best carnivores can come up with to dissuade me, perhaps there is something to it after all".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were I a vegan, and feeling a bit mischievous, I might be tempted to throw some of the delicious vegan food into the argument!

      Delete
    2. Mind you, the vegan haggis with which I was regaled one Burns Night went down *very* well with a dram or three of Highland Park.

      Delete
  6. Thanks Effie. You have confirmed me in my view that humans didn't spend 200,000 years getting to the top of the food chain to be removed by the idiocy of veganism. Or, indeed, any other "ism"

    ReplyDelete