How do you square being vegan with being pro-choice?

[Foodie]

Hello everyone. This is my first time posting here. I am an atheist, but my post is about veganism.

I was on the fence for a few years about whether it was morally acceptable for humans to harm and kill animals for food. I have recently decided (for now) that yes, it is morally acceptable, and the catalyst, the thing that really sealed the deal for me, is that I couldn’t square being vegan with my position as pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

I believe that the rights of a woman or girl not to be forced to carry a pregnancy (in all cases but especially, for example, if that pregnancy was a result of rape), absolutely trump the right to life of a foetus with no hopes or dreams and only a rudimentary (if any) ability to feel pain*. I believe that passionately and I will not change my mind.

But if that’s true, then it means that the right not to be harmed or killed is relative, i.e. it can be balanced against the rights of others. Straight away this suggests to me that the right to life of an oyster, for example, an animal with a very basic nervous system and ostensibly no ability to feel pain, would be trumped by the desire of a human for pleasure and nourishment. And it then further opens the door, in my opinion, to talk about animal welfare, and to strive scientifically to understand animals’ levels of feelings and intelligence. We can then decide on a case by case basis on the level of suffering we are causing them and how that compares to the level of pleasure and nourishment we’re deriving from them.

I try always to question myself and not become dogmatic, and so I’ve thought about a few possible counter-arguments to my case. One I thought of is that being pro-choice can be squared with being vegan because being forced to carry a pregnancy is orders of magnitude worse than being denied bacon. To that I’d say, well firstly that’s irrelevant, because we’re still admitting that the right to life is relative. And secondly, I actually believe that pleasure is important. Not as important as the right to abortion choice, but important nonetheless. I would argue that our pursuit of pleasure has been instrumental to getting us where we are as a species, it is a fundamental drive in each of our lives. And to those who might argue that the pleasure derived from meat is not that important, I would politely speculate that those are people whose passion in life isn’t food, (and all the associated historical, cultural and social aspects of food). Of course vegan food can be delicious, but it can’t immediately replace the rich cultural history of cheese-making in France, or the tradition of turkey at Christmas, things that are hugely important to people whose passion is food.

The other potential argument that I thought of against my case was that the difference is that abortion is performed on our own species, but who are we to decide on the rights of other species? I quickly decided that would be reverse speciesism though. Harming a living being is harming a living being, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a human foetus or an animal of comparable intelligence/ability to feel pain.

Those are my thoughts. I’d be really interested to hear the ideas of others. If you are vegan, how do you square that with being pro-choice? Or are you actually pro-life? Are there other relevant points that I haven’t thought of?

Thanks.

*The main arguments I hear against abortion are about the foetus’s potential for hopes and dreams and feelings, an argument which to me seems fundamentally religious. I can’t see how an atheist could be against abortion unless they are also vegan.

[Anon0045]

Hello,

I agree with most of what you wrote, that the right not to be harmed or killed is relative, but I don't agree with your conclusion. I don't think it's wrong to kill a foetus since, like you said, it only has rudimentary if any ability to feel. That alone is enough for me. On top of that, you can weigh the reduced quality of life the mother will have by not getting an abortion versus killing a next to non-sentient foetus. If you're gonna kill anything, do it while it's not sentient, because by the time it is, you're dealing with a person. I think the easiest way to determine when violence against animals is justified is to use the golden rule. You as a person, wouldn't like to be killed, I assume, even if you had a good life and the slaughter was quick and "humane"? If you were 3 years old, and had about the same ability to think and feel as a pig, would you think it's acceptable to kill you by that age for food, because otherwise you would deny people the pleasure of eating 3 year olds which has been a long tradition and which people are passionate about?

[Mr. Purple]

I don't believe the concept of rights are very defensible, and seems to be where you are being tripped up.

The core of morality as far as I can tell is minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness for conscious beings. I don't know that abortion means anything for veganism. I would apply that principle of reducing harm to both subjects independently. The extent the baby or anything else can suffer, is the extent to which we should have moral concern for it. If you are looking for excuses, you don't need abortion to bring relativity into the picture either. Veganism, like any other ethical matter is about Trying ones best and participating in the joined project of furthering the wellbeing of our fellow conscious creatures. like with almost everything else in life, It has nothing to do with absolutes. Even the best vegan is going to be killing insects and animals while existing, but that is just a fact unrelated to morality as far as I can tell.

[Jebus]

I believe the assumption that meat eating gives humans more pleasure is false. I believe the opposite is true. i.e, it brings people more misery than happiness.

I would love to read how you justify meat eating in terms of its effects on the environment.

[knot]

I agree with most of your post.

The way I see it:
It's a sliding scale where there is initially no ethical problem with aborting the fetus, and then it becomes increasingly wrong to get an abortion as the fetus begins to develop a consciousness.

In the same way, there isn't a big problem with eating animals that are essentially just a blob of cells, like oysters.
But if we're talking about pigs it's completely different.

[garrethdsouza]

Welcome to the forum.

Regarding abortion, science informs us about when the fetus is capable of feeling pain and this is based on our understanding of developmental neurobiology.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... feel-pain/

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... es_.2.html


The overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out in the early stages when the fetus is incapable of feeling pain and is non-sentient. (The minority of them are carried out due to medical complications that generally affect viability, etc) In essence it is as sentient as oysters or plants or a brain dead person - it is not.

Harming a living being is harming a living being, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a human foetus or an animal of comparable intelligence/ability to feel pain.

The issue here isn't about harming a living being but harming a sentient being. And in this case the comparably sentient animal would be oysters which you have accurately describes in line with the science:

an oyster, for example, an animal with a very basic nervous system and ostensibly no ability to feel pain

Vegans can eat oysters, there's nothing wrong with that.

Other examples of nonsentients include cells, tissues, plants and the brain dead. Killing living beings isn't intrinsically a problem, else male masturbation would be genocide. Killing sentients which have lives, hopes, etc and the ability to feel pain etc is the problem.

Veganism is about minimizing sentient pain, since the abortion isssue isn't dealing with sentients it is in perfect coherence with being vegan.

I believe that the rights of a woman or girl not to be forced to carry a pregnancy (in all cases but especially, for example, if that pregnancy was a result of rape), absolutely trump the right to life of a foetus with no hopes or dreams and only a rudimentary (if any) ability to feel pain*.

non sentients don't have rights to these issues in any tangible sense. It's like saying sperm have a right to life etc that is being trumped when one masturbates. Noones rights are being trumped here. Sperms are just cells incapable of feeling anything or having sentient lives. Similarly a nonsentient fetus is just an organised clump of cells. It bares visual resemblance to a sentient fetus, but it is actually more closer in sentience to a sperm. in either case noones rights are being trumped. so this contention is inherently incorrect.

But if that’s true, then it means that the right not to be harmed or killed is relative,

here's where you made a logical mistep. By basing your conclusions on the previous illogical basis of relative right to life (of nonsentients) and then extrapolating from there to justify any amount of actual harm (miserable and very painful existence and death, deprivation of life) done to sentients.

Of course vegan food can be delicious, but it can’t immediately replace the rich cultural history of cheese-making in France, or the tradition of turkey at Christmas, things that are hugely important to people whose passion is food.

There are a lot of great tasty vegan foods, none of us live tasteless lives and many are foodies.

There are many great reasons for an atheist to be vegan. http://vegetarianfuture.blogspot.in/201 ... chard.html

I'd suggest starting off with watching earthlings, its free. Though I disagree with certain aspects this would be the most important takeaway from the comment https://m.youtube.com/results?q=earthlings&sm=1

[Foodie]

Anon0045, thanks for your reply, that’s a good point and you’ve given me a lot to think about. I have to admit my initial thoughts, at risk of sounding completely monstrous, were that my problem with killing a three year old was more about the effect on the parents and community, than on the feelings of the three year old him/herself. But my very next thought was that would be slippery slope towards killing orphans, something I’m of course not suggesting. Some Australian researchers recently published a paper defending infanticide, on the basis that the measure of whether or not a living being has a right to not be killed is whether that being themselves is capable of valuing their life and being able to anticipate their continued life into the future. http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/0 ... 00411.full. Notwithstanding the practical application of that, I find it hard to disagree with from a purely abstract point of view.

I feel like I’m continually going in circles in my mind with points and counter-points, but a thoughtful reply like yours is exactly the reason I posted. Ok, back to the drawing board!


Jebus, with respect, I’d have to disagree with both of your points.

With regard to pleasure, as someone who is passionate about food, I can say unequivocally that meat brings pleasure to my life, and I’m speaking for all (meat eating) foodies here. I’m not talking about the momentary sensory pleasure during the actual eating. Although that’s important too, I absolutely agree that that could be replaced with delicious vegan food. I’m talking about the historical, cultural, social and even intellectual encompassment of food. For me to not be knowledgeable about the street food and restaurant scene, or to travel to somewhere like Spain and not try the Iberico ham, to change my entire passion and even career, would inarguably reduce the pleasure in my life. As I said in my original post, I would speculate that perhaps your passion in life is not food (or if it is it’s from a vegan/health angle) and that you haven’t considered the extent of what you’re asking people to give up.

With regards to the environmental impact, to me that’s an argument for eating less meat, not for stopping eating it entirely. Cars are bad for the environment, but do you think they should be banned or that we should be encouraged to use other forms of transport more often? The logical conclusion of the environmental argument, in my opinion, is that our very existence is bad for the environment and hence we should all kill ourselves.

[Jebus]

Jebus, with respect, I’d have to disagree with both of your points.

With regard to pleasure, as someone who is passionate about food, I can say unequivocally that meat brings pleasure to my life, and I’m speaking for all (meat eating) foodies here.

The meat eating foodies I know cannot even tell the difference between real and fake meat. Also, while summing up the positives the meat brings to your life have you considered the negatives (obesity, choking, ill health)?

With regards to the environmental impact, to me that’s an argument for eating less meat, not for stopping eating it entirely.

Wouldn't it be better to stop eating it completely? SInce you seem to be aware of the negative impact, how can you possibly justify eating meat at all. Isn't that analagous to a serial rapist deciding to rape fewer women after he realizes the emotional pain caused by his raping?

Cars are bad for the environment, but do you think they should be banned or that we should be encouraged to use other forms of transport more often?

I definitely believe cars (except electrical) should be banned. However, the negative environmental impact of animal agriculture is so much worse than that caused by cars, and meat eating is so much more unnecessary than cars.

[Foodie]

Garrethdsouza, thanks for your comprehensive reply. I absolutely see where you’re coming from when you say I made a logical misstep equating the rights of non-sentient beings with sentient ones. From what I’ve seen I think there are some vegans who go as far as thinking eating oysters is wrong (perhaps not the sort that would be on an atheist forum!) and I unfairly projected that onto all vegans.

Ok, I will no longer use killing of non-sentient beings (oysters and human foetuses) to justify eating meat. However, that in itself is not enough to convince me that killing beings with a low level of sentience is wrong. I don’t know the sentience level of all creatures (in fact none of us do, science is only beginning to answer these questions, and that’s really the problem) but I imagine that a small fish, say like a sardine, has a level of sentience and can feel pain. It also spends its entire life guided almost exclusively by instinct, following its school around and not contemplating life. Call me arrogant, but I would argue that my sensory, social and intellectual pleasure is more important than temporary, physical-only, pain caused to the sardine. If you actually do consider sardines to be non-sentient, then go up to the next level of species that you do consider sentient, and my point is the same, that it’s still relative, even amongst sentient beings.

Further, I think you misquoted me, or maybe I wasn’t clear, when you said;

By basing your conclusions on the previous illogical basis of relative right to life (of nonsentients) and then extrapolating from there to justify any amount of actual harm (miserable and very painful existence and death, deprivation of life) done to sentients.

I’m not justifying any amount of harm, in fact I’m suggesting the opposite. I’m suggesting that the right to not be harmed is relative (even amongst sentient beings) and that while it may be ok to kill a sardine, perhaps it’s not ok to kill a pig, and perhaps it is ok to kill a chicken, but only if we provide it with a good life first. I have to believe that my life’s passion is more important than the temporary, physical-only suffering of a sardine, but I don’t know where to draw the line. And I don’t think it’s really possible to know where to draw the line until science can tell us exactly what and how much animals are feeling.

There are a lot of great tasty vegan foods, none of us live tasteless lives and many are foodies.

Um, I just said there was delicious vegan food. I love all cuisines, including vegetarian and vegan. But only ever having vegan food again would be like only ever having Italian food again. The problem is not that I don’t like Italian. Imagine someone who’s passionate about classical music being told they can only ever listen to the violin again. Not only that, but they can’t be involved in the music scene, or learn about and appreciate great composers from past and present. You’d want to be really sure it was morally necessary before making such a sacrifice.

Having said all that, I have seen Earthlings before, and yeah, it’s pretty harrowing. And while I stand by every single thing I've said individually, reading it as a whole I can't help but detect justification/excuse-grabbing. I’m really as confused as ever.

[miniboes]

From what I’ve seen I think there are some vegans who go as far as thinking eating oysters is wrong (perhaps not the sort that would be on an atheist forum!) and I unfairly projected that onto all vegans.

That is probably because many vegans think they are in fact sentient due to the presence of some of the things needed for sentience. I don't think there is sufficient evidence for it.

Welcome to the forums, by the way. I might respond to this topic in depth later.