If you follow my twitter feed, you may have recently seen me ranting about an article that appeared last week in the Atlantic online. The author was Nicolette Hahn Niman, proud peddler of “righteous” animal flesh, and her argument was directed toward vegans who claim that it’s ethically no different to kill a pig than it is to kill a dog, given that the animals’ capacities to feel pleasure, pain, and fear are equal.
Let’s put aside for a moment the article’s misleading title: it isn’t an argument against veganism as a world view or health stance. It’s an argument against one particular claim that many vegans, myself included, like to make, which is that our attitude toward farm animals vs. pets is contradictory. On the one hand, we live in a culture where people treat pets like family members, and sometimes better. We cherish our pets, taking all sorts of measures to ensure that they are warm, fed, and walked. It’s hardly unusual for anaverage pet owner to talk to, dress up, or sleep with a cat or dog. Yet that same pet owner might, like so many others, regularly and indiscriminately eat meat. We know that farm animals are as capable as cats and dogs of feeling pain, fear, and pleasure. So how is it that the idea of killing farm animals for food –even as we stroke, coddle, and cuddle our pets–generates so few feelings of cognitive dissonance?
That it’s natural for us to be emotionally attached to our pets and somewhat unattached to farm animals that reside 4,000 miles away, I won’t deny. Of course our pets are more dear to us than other animals, just as our loved ones are more dear than strangers. But most of us would stop short of saying that, because we love a family member more than a stranger, it’s more acceptable to abuse or kill the stranger than it is the family member; if we take the position that life is at all sacred, we’re really talking about all life, not the lives that are personally bound to ours.
Obvious interjection: animals aren’t humans. True, and if your feelings about the sanctity of life don’t extend to animals and humans similarly, this post simply won’t speak to you. But for the purposes of critiquing Niman’s argument, let’s accept for a moment that any vegan who’s a vegan for animals believes that it’s wrong to kill or hurt an animal, just as it’s wrong to kill or hurt another person. When vegans says that killing dogs and pigs are equal acts of cruelty, he or she is saying that all animal life is equally worthy of protection. What he or she is arguing against is the idea that it’s alright for us to draw arbitrary distinctions based on our own emotional attachments or aesthetic responses (i.e., our feelings that puppies are cuter than pigs).
Given this premise, you can give Niman’s article a glance, and you’ll see quickly why it infuriated me. Niman failed from the start to address the idea that all animal life is sacred and worthy of our preservation. That is the premise behind a vegan’s saying that it’s equally wrong to kill a pig and a dog. Instead, she argues that these distinctions are justifiable because
1) “…individuals and cultures have always made countless decisions about what things are food and what are not. The basis for these decisions is about much more than whether something is edible or palatable. Until recent years, for instance, few modern Americans had eaten dandelions, nettles, or purslane, even though each of these plants (generally considered “weeds”) are not only highly nutritious, they’re quite tasty.”
2) “What each of us eats is the result of multiple factors, including income, geography, climate, culture, heritage, habit, and even, to a certain extent evolution (more on that in a moment), and there’s simply nothing wrong with that. Evidently, these norms are the basis for the modern Western view that eating dogs is wrong. It’s no more contradictory to eat a pig but not a dog than it is to eat arugula but not purslane. When it comes to eating, we all rule some things in and other things out.”
How do I begin to address the obliqueness of these arguments? Putting aside my frustration with the comparison of pigs and dogs to weeds, I’d say only that this misses the vegan argument entirely. No one is denying that we draw distinctions about what’s tasty or desirable to eat. Of course we do; we always have. This is, as Niman states, anthropological, religious, cultural, social, socio-economic, and circumstantial. What vegans argue is that these distinctions are meaningless because all animal slaughter is an act of cruelty against a sentient being; it’s all wrong. Convincing oneself that it’s wrong to kill Rover, but OK to kill Babe, is a contradiction in terms.
If Niman had simply said, “I don’t accept the premise that it’s wrong to kill animals for human consumption, so I don’t think it matters whether or not we make taste-based decisions about who dies and who doesn’t,” I’d have disagreed, but understood her logic. What baffles me is that she seems to think that saying we make distinctions based on our own tastes somehow negates the ethical arguments that vegans are making. No one’s saying that we don’t routinely make choices about what we think is edible or palatable. The question is whether or not the things we deem edible are also ethically justifiable.
I was also astounded by Niman’s apparent belief that human tastes are somehow morally sacrosanct: as if, because we decide based on culture and time and place that something is appealing to us, that means it’s alright. She points out that many cultures have a closer bond to dogs than to pigs, and then uses this fact to justify our decision to kill pigs. Historically, white people viewed blacks as inferior (as animals, actually), and chose therefore to enslave them. Men viewed women unworthy of political power and social freedom, and chose to keep them domestically stifled and politically disenfranchised. Were either of these habits–all of which reflected strong and longstanding cultural norms–right?
Ethical norms shift and change over time. But change happens because, at any given moment, brave people are willing to question the fact that we humans tend to assume that what we’re used to doing–either because it’s convenient, or traditional, or pleasurable–is right. And those assumptions must constantly be exposed to scrutiny and questioning. Attitudes like Niman’s, which suggest that our preferences will always justify themselves, threaten our capacity for self-examination, and with it moral evolution. Rotten stuff, and hardly a nuanced response to a vegan who questions why we have such an easy time disregarding the inner lives and feelings of animals we don’t happen to live with.
Those of you who responded to my 365 post giveaway with requests for more vegan rants have most certainly had your wish granted tonight. I am dying to hear what you guys think of Niman’s article, and about this issue in general. As usual, I’m 100% open to hearing thoughtful arguments that at least acknowledge the animating argument of veganism, which is that animals aren’t ours to kill and eat. What bothered me so much about Niman’s is that, in talking so gaily about our ever-shifting tastes, she didn’t acknowledge that fundamental argument at all.
Oddly, the comments on that post, which numbered over 355 (mine included) seem not to be working; that’s probably a glitch in the way my office computer is loading it. I hope they weren’t taken down because of their vociferousness or quantity. In any case, my friends, let me know your thoughts. And thanks, as always, for inspiring me to share my thoughts–including my more impassioned thoughts!
xo
I'm a Certified Clinical Nutritionist, a former book editor, and a post-baccalaureate pre-med student at Georgetown University. I'm passionate about helping people to discover and enjoy plant based foods in a simple and healthy way. My name is pronounced like "Jenna." 
{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }
First, great post. Second, what struck me most about Niman’s article was how she seemed completely blind to all the positive ways our culture teaches us to view pigs (and other animals). Yes, we may be brought up to see them as belonging on the farm and not in house, but we also are brought up to see them as objects of compassion, as fellow creatures in life, as cute, as remarkable, as worthy of care and attention, as living things sharing many of the same experiences we do–and this positive understanding of them is fundamentally at odds with seeing them as mere meat-makers. Any child who watches “Babe” already understands this; I don’t understand how an adult could be so oblivious.
What to do? As my girlfriend suggested, maybe we vegans can band together to send Niman as many copies of “Charlotte’s Web” as possible? Maybe that would teach her to wise up.
Willie,
The really amusing thing is that at other moments and in other writings, she’s remarkably self-righteous about how much she loves pigs, and how great she thinks they are.
G
here here! this is hard for me to understand. i love the animals that live with me, but i cry for the ones that i know are out there about to die.
I loved the intelligent responses so many veg*ns posted in the comments of that illogical and baseless ‘article’. Really left the omnis in the dust.
Thanks for adding some more clarity to the argument, nicely put.
This article made me cringe.
Veganism is not about food, nor is it about what is “palatable” or “edible”.
Veganism is about honoring the fact that animals are living, feeling creatures that need and deserve the same rights that we humans have.
It seemed so bizarre to me that Niman spent the majority of the article justifying why it is okay to think that dogs are superior to other animals simply because it is the mainstream social norm in American culture. She then compared our norms to those of other cultures. I am still a bit confused about what she was Niman was ultimately trying to say. It seemed like she was saying something along the lines of: every culture (generally speaking) has their own ideas of what is acceptable and because every country has their own culture and history, it would be impossible to say that that one norm is humane or inhumane.
While, I agree that it is important to respect another person’s belief (this includes culture, history, etc), it seems that Nadim missed the entire idea behind the pig/dog argument which is simply that you should respect all life.
I always enjoy your “vegan rants.” It seems to me that Niman’s same argument that we’ve always valued different species of animals differently could also be applied to people. We’ve always valued different races differently. We’ve always valued different genders differently. We’ve always valued different sexual orientations differently.
That doesn’t make it ideal. That doesn’t make it humane. That doesn’t make it right.
Preach on, Gena. I’ll be in the front pew.
Thanks, friend
I appreciate it!
Thank you for once again articulating my thoughts. =)
There are two parts of your post that especially stand out to me – First of all, your comparison to racism is spot-on. Just because a culture traditionally devalues a certain group does not make that acceptable! And secondly, why is “taste” sacrosanct? It just makes NO sense to me why, “But it tastes good” is supposed to be a conversation-ending rationale. My tastebuds are NOT more important than an animal’s life.
What a post, what an article…wow! I was not aware of the article until just coming here to see the link.
I think your vegan rant is spot on, I agree wholeheartedly. However, I am already vegan. People who arent and who may have a few lightbulb moments are the ones that should be reading this and seeing this…but I doubt that many will.
I also wonder any time there is vegan ranting done if it alienates those who arent yet vegan from even trying to become more plant-based…they may become scared off, or turned off, or I don’t know..just overwhelmed and so rather than changing, they do nothing. And continue eating pigs, cows, dogs, and red dye #40 so to speak. Just talking out loud here…
I have friends who aren’t vegan and they tell me they are scared of vegan soapboxing and some of them are bloggers and they are scared to post non vegan food even tho they are say 95% of the time, vegan. Which this is getting off track but anyway…
…anyway, lovely eye opening article and post, Gena. Thank you for having the kahunas to broach in one single post: vegan stuff, dog eating stuff, color/race stuff, sexual orientation stuff..good stuff
Averie,
Definitely that’s an unrelated point, but I’m glad you raised it. I think my blog generally reflects my tolerant and welcoming attitude. Both because I welcome readers who aren’t even vegetarian, and because I frequently mention how many people in my life (friends, parents) aren’t vegan, and are also never lectured by me.
But I’ve no interest in smothering strong opinions — especially about things that really matter to me — so that non-vegans on the defensive can feel more safe. In the moments where I get vocal about vegan issues that are urgent and close to my heart, readers who don’t want to read about it can definitely skip a post! Lord knows I’m used to having to skip certain posts on omnivorous blogs. If I give them fun and easy ways to dabble in veganism 90& of the time, I trust they can handle the 10% wherein I talk about the tougher stuff.
G
I totally agree about being used to skipping certain posts on omni blogs…and making good use of the scroll bar!
And strong opinions are what makes life interesting!
what a great post Gena. To me, an animal is an animal. And i choose not to eat the flesh of any of them. I don’t make distinctions between species, nor nutritional value – fish, for example, would be arguably better for me, a sufferer of crohn’s disease seriously struggling to supplement omega 3 DHA, than steak ever would. But I made a conscious decision not to eat any of it more than a year ago, and i continue to do so for many reasons, the most important of which is my soul. I know it sounds kooky, but while my health has improved incredibly on a plant based diet, the biggest difference is knowing that nothing I embibe has died for me to eat it. I believe there is a huge amount of karma, and fear, and guilt implicit in meat, by virtue of it being gained through slaughter. Not putting that in to my body has been the kindest thing i’ve ever done for myself, let alone the animals I choose not to eat.
We have two pet pigs, and they are just as smart as our dogs and we love them just as much! Definitely NOT food!
Another great post! One more thing I’d like to add probably pertains to one of the more general anti-vegan arguments, not necessarily to Niman’s article. I’ve heard people say that human beings evolved the taste preference for certain species, the cognitive skills to design traps and ways to hunt for them, and the manual dexterity to use weapons, so it’s natural and even hard-wired to use these skills to feed ourselves. However, I believe that we also evolved this little part of the brain called prefrontal cortex that allows us to carry out higher order reasoning, make moral judgments and it biases our behavior towards the non-dominant, but more acceptable and appropriate responses. So while it’s true that we do have the capacity to kill, prepare and eat animals, we also have the means to choose not to.
I love your metaphor about the fact that, historically we’ve valued other races, genders, nationalities as “less valuable,” and that doesn’t make it any more right than valuing a pig less than a dog.
It really seems to me that, as you said, she seems to be downright ignoring the heart of the argument of veganism, which is that all life has value and that we, as thinking beings, can choose to live our lives in ways that honor that value. If you’re talking pigs vs. dogs at that point…well, you’re kind of missing the point!
I can’t seem to view the comments, either, and there’s also an update where she defends her piece, stating that whether or not pigs are sentient is irrelevant to why American’s eat them.
It seems like one of those cases where it’s impossible to argue. Someone is convinced that the sky is orange, and therefore it must be, because they say so.
The fact that other animals suffer is relevant to me. The fact that other people are treated as less than equal is relevant to me. The argument isn’t suddenly irrelevant because some people decide that one group is more important than the other. I understand that is how some people see the world.
However, it infuriates me to be told that I should see certain animals as friends, and others as food. Just as it would infuriate me, as a person of color, to be told that some people see me as less than a person, and that’s just the way it is.
Great remark, Luciana.
This is absolutely spot on. I hadn’t seen the article, and I am glad I didn’t. I agree with the notion that it is contradictory to eat pigs, not dogs, and it was one of the things (of many) that steered me toward veganism. I think the most important point that you made is that her article does nothing to change the ethical rationale for veganism. She could have used some much more interesting arguments (for instance, she could have discussed the fact that our brain actually releases chemicals that create those barriers – to protect ourselves from the pain of certain thoughts – of which killing for food is one), but instead chose some very weak ones that really don’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
I have been struggling a lot lately with the fact that there are many, many people who simply do not believe it is wrong to kill animals and that many of them never will. She places herself squarely in that camp. Whilst it could be simply a justification to continue eating animals, it could also be really genuine. I would be incredibly interested to see research about empathy and neural responses in vegans and non-vegans. Sometimes I wonder if we really are wired differently. Perhaps that’s because one of the books I am currently reading, The Empathy Gap by J.D. Trout, has made me think a lot about empathy…and how we bridge the gap. Nearly all people feel empathy, but they don’t feel it equally and they don’t act on it in the same way.
Sorry, I’m moving off topic here. I loved this post – so eloquently written and thoughtful.
Thanks sweetie. Was eager for your thoughts
I see exactly where you’re coming from and I couldn’t agree more. I used to consume fish (mostly in the form of sardines) as the last form of animal flesh I would eat after becoming vegetarian. I did it for the health reasons (calcium, omega 3′s, vitamin D) and, to be blunt and honest, I also enjoyed the taste. However, after reading and thinking more about the topic, I fell into the same dilemma that you bring up here: What makes a fish any less susceptible to feeling pain and suffering than any other animal? Why was I able to still eat fish without worrying about their feelings yet other animals I was opposed to consuming?
I’ve stopped eating fish now (which marks all animals out of my diet) and the only time that I would consider consuming animals at all is when a meal has been prepared, and I have been offered some because the host was unaware that I don’t eat that way and I think it would be a shame for that animal to have given its life for me to just send it back and refuse to consume it (of course I can find out is someone else is willing to eat it first).
I know, I’m off on a bit of a tangent here, but your response really strikes home with me and that’s what I’m getting at. Excellent rebuttal to her claims and a high-five for standing up and saying it.
Great post, Gena! This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about the article, but far more eloquently!
This post came at a really good time for me! I have been re-examining my reasons to be vegan. I cut out meat over a year ago and even before that I didn’t eat it that much. Then, in February, I cut out the rest of the animal products I ate. I enjoy eating vegan, but I am open to the fact that some people cannot convert the plant-based nutrients and need to obtain them from animals. I started my vegan journey for health reasons and then it became ethical. However, when I explain my ethical reasons to people, they always answer me with a question of why animal life is more important than plant life. Life is life and one shouldn’t be held above the other. It’s been hard for me to wrap my brain around that issue lately, and I’m starting to see that plant life is no different than animal life (especially if you own a garden, you will know what I mean). I’m still vegan, but I have been re-thinking the way I justify it. If a pig is no different than a dog, then why is a fresh picked apple different than a chicken breast? They were both living at one time. This is something I have been struggling with and I would love to hear your opinion.
Brooke,
I definitely don’t deny the sanctity of botanical life! It’s awe inspiring. But I would have to say that the fact that plants don’t have a cerebral cortex is kind of a decent starting point; we don’t have evidence that they experience pain in ways that a living animal does.
This gets complicated when you take into account oysters, for instance, which some have argued should be permissible in a vegan diet if we go by arguments of “sentience” or the capacity for pain, because they have neither. I get this, I really do, but in general I also understand that we have to be able to draw boundaries based on certain criteria somehow. I’m willing to say that sentient beings with neocortex that can experience pain should not be harmed. I consider the processes by which milk and eggs are taken from animals harmful. And I’m also willing to include in this general position insects and oysters, even if they don’t fit neatly into my criteria for sentience. But I’d draw a line with plants, even though, once again, I’m not unaware of how wondrous plant LIFE is.
Gena
“I consider the processes by which milk and eggs are taken from animals harmful.”
I spent some time living in villages where families had several goats or a cow. They grazed freely and occasionally were fed table leftovers and vegetable rind. The milking was done by hand. I am curious, would you still see this as harmful?
Contemporary dairy operations leave me deeply uneasy and I have been wondering about giving it up. But when I think of the way people just lived with animals that I actually had a unique chance to experience first hand, taking milk and eggs in exchange for food and shelter, I don’t have ethical problems with it. But unfortunately, I also can’t imagine a viable way to have this kind of lifestyle in the modern world so it is a theoretical contemplation only…
Inga,
Another tough question, and I appreciate your asking it. I fundamentally am persuaded by arguments that animals’ products (eggs and milk) aren’t really ours to take, any more than I want my breast milk taken from me for anyone other than my own baby. But I think I’m much *more* sympathetic to farm practices that are 100% un-invasive. The problem is that I think few farming practices really work like this.
G
Thanks for the quick reply. I was curious where you drew the line. Plants and animals are completely different, structurally speaking. However, I would tend to disagree that plants do not feel pain. If you transplant a baby plant, it will wilt and sometimes die. Most of the time, however, that plant will revive itself and come back. We can see the pain that it goes though. The same thing occurs with a tree that is being cut down. I kind of feel like this issue can be lumped into the abortion argument where life is life, no matter if it is inside the womb or not. It’s getting harder and harder for me to distinguish what life is ok to take and what is not. I am a big animal lover, but life is life and it’s hard to put one type of life above another. It seems like people draw the line with animals because they resemble humans much more than plants do.
Brooke,
I guess my question would be, is wilting and dying the same as experiencing pain, at least as we know it?
G
My english isn’t great so I’m just gonna make my point and be done. I have thought about this (the moral of eating plants) and I think that there is one very important point that people seem to forget. The animals we use for consumption eat plants (ideally anyway.. you never know what they get). One very important reason for eating a plantbased diet is the huge amount of energy (resource wise and other wise) we save. And that energy comes from plants never having to be consumed by cows etc. So, you probably save a lot of plantlife by eating them instead of eating animals, depending on what you eat of course.
You could of course be a fruitarian and only eat fruit that have fallen from the tree, that way you would never take any life.
Also I would like to point out that a pig have much, much more in common with a human being then a piece of lettuce. And a good response would suggest that the omni should start eating humans.
I’m so sick of omnis and their stupid justifications.. how would they like if if we in addition to the million good reason for being vegan/vegetarian would start making shit up that doesn’t make sense? And the THEY would have to listen to while trying to respond with dignity and respect.
Sorry for my little rant.. I freaking love your blog Gena and one day I too will have patience and act with grace.
Frankly, I think this argument for veganism starts with a flawed premise and is therefore a weak argument. Sure, it’s easy to SAY, “Oh, you shouldn’t make a distinction between one kind of life and another,” but we do. Every day. Everybody does, every body has since the beginning of time. Am I evil or hypocritical for killing a spider even though I won’t eat a pig? Of course, I’ve never eaten pig flesh, not because I’m vegan, but because I was raised in a household where Kosher food is the norm.
Ok, I’m racing off on a tangent. I’ll come back to the topic at hand. I find that the sole premise behind this argument basically boils down to – is killing wrong? Is all killing wrong? I might think yes, but someone else can argue no. I might change my mind on this topic when we stop using such emotionally loaded propagandist phrases about eating dogs. Some cultures DO eat dogs, just not our Western society.
Of course, my strongest belief is in cultural and moral relativism. I literally do not know how to see the world in black and white, and I often have trouble making a decision because of this. I have CHOSEN veganism as my life path right now, and I cannot bring myself to eat meat or animal products at all, for many reasons, including the fact that a turkey dinner is just a dead bird. But that doesn’t mean I agree with this argument.
Excellent post, Gena. When I encounter [non-]arguments such as Niman’s, my mind almost always goes to cannibalism. There have been cultures with deeply ingrained, long-held traditions of cannibalism. One could just as plausibly use the “it’s tradition” argument to justify cannibalism as to justify consuming non-human animals.
Plus, as you an others have pointed out, Niman avoids actually engaging the issue she pretends to address–and then she acts as if she’s somehow “won” in a debate against ethical vegans. It’s kind of like trying to debate with someone who ends the session by shouting “I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?” and running away.
What’s interesting about this is that Nicolette Niman is a vegetarian. I just finished reading Johnathon Safron Foer’s Eating Animals, and there’s a section in there about Niman Ranch. Check it out if you haven’t already.
I’m aware. But I still have issues with ethical animal farming, and though I applaud her vegetarianism, I just can’t abide by this article’s lack of clarity.
I am not vegan or even vegetarian, but I agree completely with your feelings on this article and the flaws in its logic.
It’s actually really lovely to hear a critical case from a non-vegan. Appreciate it
Glad to hear it
I’ve also just realized that her entire argument on ultra-special historical relationship between people and dogs ignores Chinese culture, in which eating dogs has been normal…
Although within Chinese culture, some dogs are viewed as food and some aren’t!
And that is exactly what I was thinking about as I read this! Living in China, it was so strange to see the food-dogs and the pet-dogs in completely different circumstances. I won’t describe that more graphically but…it’s startling.
Anyway, Gena, this is a wonderful argument, and I agree with you, as a non-vegan. I think you and your intelligent readers have raised the points that should be brought to light, so I will simply sign off by saying that you could pretty much drive a truck through the holes in Niman’s argument.
I haven’t read the post yet but those piglets are adorable!
I’m not a vegan but I feel the need to comment on just a few things here. Go easy on me, I am new at this subject and I’m really just trying to understand and not be argumentative
. I read this blog because I am open to new ideas and eating new kinds of foods that hopefully in the long run make me more cognizant of what I choose to put in my body. By the way, I’m 7 months pregnant and have found meat completely repulsive this pregnancy…which suggests to me that perhaps my body is telling me something!!
That being said, and acknowledging that Niman’s arguments are far from perfect, there are 2 things that I would challenge:
1. Gena you note in your post that “animals aren’t ours to kill and eat” and I fully see and appreciate that argument. I wonder though, for those animals that are out in the wild that have not been farmed or domesticated in any way, what do they eat, and do they “feel” the same way that other animals are not theirs to eat? Are there are nuances to what is/is not/should/should not be considered food when it comes to pure survival and to whom this applies? If we then argue that humans are evolutionarily superior and therefore should be making the ‘don’t eat animals’ choice (because we know better and have an appreciation and respect for life), doesn’t that suggest that we can and do make our own rules about what is and isn’t food? When it comes down to it, we do decide what is and isn’t food, just like animals do…the difference though is that we have a greater understanding of the implications of those choices.
2. One of the commenters noted that “Veganism is about honoring the fact that animals are living, feeling creatures that need and deserve the same rights that we humans have.” I’m sure this wasn’t meant literally…but I think it is an important distinction. Animals should indeed have rights, but as humans wouldn’t we value a humans life more than we would value an animals life? If you had a choice between saving a drowning person or a drowning animal, wouldn’t the clear choice be the person first? I don’t believe that’s something we should feel guilty about, though the loss of life in either case is certainly tragic.
Nice comments, Danielle! You bring up really tough questions that all vegans seek to answer.
1) I think that human beings have reasoning capacities that allow us to make choices not dictated by evolution and nature, per se — we can choice to be faithful to our partners, rather than commit infidelity because we feel lust, and we can choose not to act on the urge to hit or attack another person when we’re angry, because we don’t feel that it’s right. I think we can also choose not to eat animals, because of the suffering and harm caused. Does this mean we make a decision about what is food and what is not? Yes. But it’s a decision born of a strong ethical urge, and not born of taste, climate, habit, tradition, or the other factors Niman lists.
2) This is a rough one for me, and I’m sure for others. It’s easy for me to say I won’t eat animals or wear leather, but of course when it comes down to animal testing (assuming that computerized testing is absolutely not possible) for cures for cancer and such, I have a much harder ethical quandary on my hands. Have I got the answers? No. Right now, I know what I CAN do to easily prevent animal suffering, and that is the avoidance of cruelties that I consider to be gratuitous, like killing animals for food.
Hope this makes sense?
You ALWAYS make sense Gena
thats part of why I love your blog, because you don’t just talk, you believe, and you articulate. I definitely appreciate your responses. I see what you mean about the basis for our decisions in contrast to what Niman cites as factors that dictate our decisions. I suppose at the very least, no matter where we are on the eating spectrum, we can at least evaluate the consequences of our choices every day, without trying to solve the bigger questions! I applaud you for making even the non-vegans of your readers think critically about an important subject.
There is really no justification for using animals in research. In fact using animals whose bodies are very different than our own, and who have been infected with disease rather than having contracted as humans have, distracts from good research that could actually save humans lives. For more info, go to PCRM, a bunch of doctors who are against animal research.
http://pcrm.org/resch/anexp/index.html
Thanks B!
I know precious little, as a matter of fact, about animal testing for medical purposes. I’ve taken pre-health classes where vivisection was included and refused to participate because they might have easily been simulated by computer, but that’s it so far. I hope to learn much more about this very topic, and perhaps even partake in changing attitudes about it! Appreciate the link — as I’m sure readers do.
G
Nicolette is a vegetarian, so she herself is not eating pork. But as a rancher, I suppose she has had to justify “eating animals.” Maybe it’s because I’m not a vegan that I wasn’t as put off by the article as other commenters. I do think there are a great many reasons not to eat animals, but I’ve always found the “sentience” argument to be the weakest (I’m completely unconvinced – and put off – by Peter Singer’s work, for example). I don’t think Nicolette is making an argument against ethical veganism, but rather, pointing out the flaws in one particular vegan argument (namely, that if you wouldn’t eat your dog, you shouldn’t be eating pigs). I think since vegans categorically rule out eating any animal flesh, they simply don’t get how omnivores make decisions about what to eat based on a variety of (non-ethical) factors such as culture, taste, etc. Of course vegans will find those reasons morally repugnant (one type of flesh, if you buy Singer’s premises, is not more acceptable than another) … but Niman’s point was not to defend omnivorism, rather, to demonstrate that if one hasn’t, like Singer, ruled out eating flesh on moral grounds, eating one kind and not another is not philosophically inconsistent. Even if it’s bad for other reasons.
I think you just made the argument that she ought to have made. What she never truly said outright was what you say so clearly here: “if one hasn’t, like Singer, ruled out eating flesh on moral grounds, eating one kind and not another is not philosophically inconsistent. Even if it’s bad for other reasons.” Instead, she launched into anthropological and historical arguments without really bothering to dig in and address the idea of sentience — or, for that matter, the causation of suffering. In other words, she argued specifics without really explaining her ideological premise.
I agree that one needn’t agree with Singer, or with me, and that there’s a very valid argument to be made about how an omnivore will make distinctions about what is food and what is not. I just don’t think she made it very well, or that she’s a very persuasive writer.
I read it and had the same thoughts as you. There was such a lack in focus… if I received it as a student paper, she’d have to do much rewriting. What she says it’s going to be about and what it’s about are two completely different arguments.
Thanks for writing this, Gena! I love your rebuttal, and you put my thoughts into words better than I ever could. I’m definitely sharing this with others!
not being vegan, i don’t have much to add, but i did want to express that this was a particularly eloquent post. it’s my impression that while not everyone becomes vegan for moral reasons, the overwhelming majority do, and i find it frustrating that so many omnivores seem devoted to finding ways to discredit such a strong set of beliefs. it would be considered unacceptable for the atlantic to publish an article, for instance, written by a christian calling out the flaws in my beliefs as a jew. i wish we could all just live and let live.
Hello, I am considering the vegan/vegetarian lifestyle and have been trying to justify my belief that animals do feel pain/suffering, etc. I believe that they do, but I have not been able to find scientific studies/evidence backing up my point. I am very new to this, so if anyone has any websites or information they could send my way regarding scientific evidence proving ALL animals capacity to feel pain and fear I would GREATLY appreciate it! Thanks!
Any of Jeffery Mason’s books will help convince you.
http://www.jeffreymasson.com/
i agree with her article in that what we eat is very much steeped in tradition, individual preferences and the culture you grew up in. say, if you grew up in a chinese household, you might not know what cheese was or if you grew up in india where the cow is sacred.
i guess perhaps i am kind of an odd vegan (99% of the time i eat vegan). it’s because i value the sanctity of life that i completely respect a farmer who is with an animal from birth to slaughter and then chooses to eat and not waste any part of that animal.
but i like your passion. you’re passionate about animals the way i am passionate about getting rid of food subsidies in order to fundamentally change the food system.
Aw, thanks! Mutual passion admiration society. I like this.
I grew up on meat/potatoes and have just recently moved away from animal products. My thought is that critisizing someone’s diet of choice is like critisizing their religion. Unlike the woman in the article, you remain respectful to those who choose to eat meat, even though it’s not a belief you share. I resepct you for that and I think your approach is what made me rethink my beliefs about health and living a content, guilt-free life. This post isn’t really about the article so much, but a thank you for this blog. Your arguments here are on point and I wish more people would take your approach to make that point. I rejected the vegan plight for so long and your blog really changed my outlook on it. Now, where is your recipie for humble pie?
This woman really has no good points other than “we like dogs better so we don’t eat them”. And I agree that the same has been used to justify slavery and withholding rights from certain races and women. She’s just trying to find a way to live with herself knowing she is responsible for so much death, being a pig farmer.
This issue comes up with me in a different way. Some people can’t understand why I don’t feed my dogs meat. Because I don’t want to have another animal die for my dog is my answer. I don’t see why the lamb or chicken has to die when dogs can be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet. People value the dog’s life more, so therefore the think the dog deserves to eat the animal.
Hi bitt! A little off topic but I’m wondering, do you use a brand of vegan dog food or do you make your own? Did you transition them from conventional food? I’m working on switching my boys right now and I’d love to talk to someone who’s been there!
Hi Sayward! I just saw your comment & thought of a recent post on the blog Vegan Crunk in which the author discusses switching her dog to a vegan diet: http://vegancrunk.blogspot.com/2010/10/datsun-is-v-dog.html
Hope that helps!
Oh thanks! Gena just pointed me at this blog too, I actually have it opened in a tab and ready to get my read on. Great to know she covers this topic! Thanks!
I read this article when you tweeted it and got myself pretty worked up. Then I started reading the comments . . . always a bad idea. Good for you for having the patience to compose such a thoughtful response. I get so dang frustrated with arguments like these! (ie, those that lack foundational logic and are transparent justifications for simple hedonism). Anyway, I agree with you completely.
This conversation reminded me of ideas discussed in the book “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows”. Are you familiar with it? I haven’t read it myself (yet!) but heard an awesome interview with the author. She talks about her idea ‘carnism’, which I just find fascinating. Thought you might like to listen – http://www.vegcast.com/vegcast88.mp3
On an unrelated note, I just saw that you’re speaking at VCon. YAY! I’ll be speaking too and I don’t know about you, but I am SO FREAKING EXCITED for this conference! All the best bloggers in one place? Yes please! It’s gonna be out of control. I look forward to meeting you! =)
I haven’t read that book, but I *really* want to.
And YES, I’m there! Announcing it tomorrow. So freakin excited, and I’ll have you know that the first thing I felt gleeful about was meeting you and Bianca (Vegan Crunk). I cannot wait!
Yay! But it’s gonna be a looong year, man! =D
I started to read the article, but couldn’t finish it.. earlier today, I watched a heartbreaking shelter dog video and I’m feeling to sensitive to the suffering of animals right now.. but from what you wrote, I agree 100% with what you said from what I read of the article. I’ll come back to it when I’m not as sensitive.
I remember you twittering about this article and I read it. So hard to believe! I love hearing your rants, because even though they maybe rants, you always come across as a wise lovable person. And I love that
This article was a hard one for me to read, but I totally agree with what you said. You are spot on.
I have a headache and a lot of work so I’ll sidestep the debate this time- you probably already saw my response to Niman’s article. But I’d like to say that the pigs in the picture you chose are ADORABLE! They look so happy to be pigs
“It’s no more contradictory to eat a pig but not a dog than it is to eat arugula but not purslane. When it comes to eating, we all rule some things in and other things out.”
It is if you morally object to eating the dog but not the pig…
Logically, in order to be consistent and have this statement make sense:
1) she has a moral objection to eating purslane but not arugala, OR
2) she has no moral objection to eating a dog, but doesn’t because she thinks it wouldn’t taste nice or be affordable or there are no dogs in her part of the world.
Suspecting that neither of these are true, I’m gonna suggest she’s not really thought this through…
I love my dog very much. A beautiful, sweet reminder of life’s gifts and happiness
Even though I am not vegan, but I agree with the way you argued against the article. I definitely appreciate the way that you stand up for the lifestyle and dietary path that you choose and don’t find it off putting as a non-vegan because I don’t see what you are doing as arguing against omnivores, but against invalid arguments against veganism (interesting, spellcheck thinks veganism isn’t a word haha). I have considered being vegan in the past and defend it in conversation when people dismiss or make fun of it. It’s like people are frightened because they know intuitively that vegans are doing something good but they do not want to change their habits or look at them critically.
This reminds me that I recently read Eating Animals which is filled with arguments against factory farming and eating meat that make a lot of sense. Recommended if you haven’t already read it. I’d love to hear what you think.
Gena, I love your blog and use your recipes a lot. I am not a vegatarian, I eat meat perhaps once or twice a week. I have a farm in Quebec and a massive garden with my husband, and we grow all of our vegetables organically. We even supply to a local restaurant. I subsist on borscht these days. That said, we also keep cows and sheep, and my husband does like to eat these animals. He has killed his own cows in the field and the butcher is there to take the carcass away to hang the meat, and then divide it up. The way it goes is like this: the cow is eating grass or looking another way and then suddenly, its life is over. It is about as humaine as this could be. I guess I feel that humans, like other species do eat meat. I cook this meat for my husband, and I eat it myself, maybe once a week. I think if we relied on grocery store meat, I wouldn’t eat it at all, for many of the reasons above, plus it is not organic. We keep chickens also, and eat their eggs. They are quite happy chickens, we feed them the tomatoes that we cannot eat. Anyway, I hope that this viewpoint is not offensive to you, I am writing because I wanted to provide another view, based on my own experience, which I acknowledge is not likely the norm.
By the way if you’re ever in Montreal you have to check out Crudessence, it is a vegan raw food restaurant that I love that I think you would too. Finally, if you have any recipes for Swiss Chard, please do tell, because I have about a ton of it.
Gosh, I’m always the latecomer to the good conversations!! Amazing, amazing post, Gena. I checked out the article when you posted it to your twitter feed and was baffled by it. Number one, it is completely nonsensical (which you so eloquently go into). Second of all, I totally disagree with the whole “pets are different than farm animals” argument. It is BECAUSE of my relationship with my dog that I think about farm animals, wild game etc. as emotional beings with distinct personalities. Though I’ve been primarily vegetarian since I was 15, it wasn’t until my beloved dog, Ella, came into my life that I even gave a second thought to being vegan. She deserves the credit for my personal evolution into a vegan diet and lifestyle.
This may be unrelated as it doesn’t pertain to diet but I’m not afraid to admit that is was another group of dogs that got me thinking of animal rights at a very young age – 101 Dalmations! Cruella Deville wanted to skin them for fur coats and I remember being horrified and vowing to never wear fur. As a child, I had no idea what the words vegetarian or vegan even were, but I find my youthful reaction to animal cruelty so telling.
Love this! Love love! As usual, Kathleen, a graceful and sensible comment.
Ha – The best part of that whole article is the first comment, first science:
“What’s ‘nonsense’, is this blog..”
And, Amen to that.
I actually had to read and reread this article a total of 3 times to fully understand the point that she was trying to make. Which honestly, I’m still not sure I can wrap my head around, due to it’s ignorance. To me, it seemed as if she were saying, if you haven’t built a relationship with a certain animal, it can’t feel pain (I’m generalizing here, and maybe even exaggerating, but you get it) and therefore, it’s ok to devour it.
Which, could be the most foolish thing/argument I’ve ever heard.
What I would have summed up with a bunch of @#%*&’s, you summed quite eloquently – great post!
this post actually struck a chord with me. i always plan on turning vegetarian especially since having two dogs whom i love dearly. i didn’t feel right eating meat while i hated the idea of fur and cruelty of animals. it’s just so hard to break a habit especially when you were raised a certain way for so long. i shall try again though!
I’m coming back today to comment because I was too emotional yesterday to articulate anything. You couldn’t have posted this at a more appropriate time. I’m finally ready to try harder to move into vegetarianism because I feel an ethical responsibility to do so. It’s been difficult to coordinate meals with a meat-eating husband and I let that become an excuse to compromise my food beliefs, but I’m not going to do it anymore. Reading that poorly justified argument in that article made me realize just how passionate I am about these issues and how I need to follow those passions.
Alayna,
If I may say so, I am SO proud of you.
Congrats on taking the plunge. If you’re worried about the practicalities, don’t be: veg*nism is SO easy once you’re in the groove!
G
Hi Gena! I always appreciate your posts, though I rarely comment. In addition to the book “Eating Animals,” the Niman ranch is also discussed (I’m like 99% sure) in the book “The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter” (Mason & Singer). I found it very helpful to consider the source of the arguments. As many have pointed out, the Nimans own a ranch which is dependent on the slaughter and consumption of animals to earn a living. In the end, no matter which argument Niman makes, she is dependent on people clinging to whatever arguments they have to justify the slaughter and consumption of living beings. I would have found it a lot more honest, if she had directly come out and said “We eat meat because much of this country’s economy is based on that. As a result, we’re given arguments of culture and history and health to justify it.” Her arguments are flawed, but they are perpetuated by something far greater than Niman herself.