The promotion of ethical veganism for all uses of non-human animals is a way that combines a number of individual campaigns and does not focus on a particular use of non-human animals. It is the way to oppose the exploitation of all non-human animals.
~ Nicholas Pendergrast (November 11, 2011)
Source: Interview with Nicholas Pendergrast of Australia’s ARA, Inc. and Vegan Perth
In his latest piece for the Atlantic Food Channel, he [James McWilliams] attempts to refine his earlier argument by saying that animals are sentient beings, and therefore it is wrong to kill and eat them. Not an argument I personally agree with, but so far, so good. The trouble comes with his definition of “sentient.” If sentient means, according to McWilliams, “capable of suffering,” where do we draw the line? And if animals are so sentient, doesn’t that make a farm system where they suffer less, if at all, dramatically better than one that causes nothing but suffering for all of the animals and many of the people involved?
A fish does not register “pain” or “fear”. It might exhibit a rush of stress hormones when confronted with a lethal situation, but plants also release stress hormones, especially as a result of any sort of damage. Like when you snap a tree branch to pick an apple. Or shear off leaves from a spinach plant for salad. I’m not making the argument that plants are sentient beings, but as long as we’re “lifting veils” and performing “mental exercises,” to use McWilliams’ parlance, we might as well go whole hog, don’t you think?
~ Nicole Washington (January 11, 2011)
Source: Reason Is What Separates Us From the Animals
[G]iven that this idea of equal consideration is so central to an ethical understanding of our relationship with animals, why do we so rarely think about it? In a food culture that’s become quite obsessed with producing and consuming food in ways that are morally just, why do we consistently avoid the issue of animal sentience, and the basic rights that such sentience guarantees? Why do otherwise socially conscious consumers fail to ask if an animal’s death is a fair price to pay to satisfy our carnivorous palates?
My sense is that we’ve avoided these questions for a single reason, one that Gary Francione identified decades ago: Farm animals are legally property. And their status as property poses an enormous, and enormously unrecognized, barrier to our recognition of their basic right to equal consideration.
Objects are legitimately property. Sentient beings—beings capable of suffering—should not be. There’s no denying that free-range systems are generally more concerned with animal welfare. But it’s very difficult (if not impossible) for the owner of farm animals to give their “property” equal consideration because their status as property skews all consideration toward the owner’s interest. There are gradations of freedom, and an owner of an animal raised to produce meat is only going to go so far down that scale. Otherwise, there would be no need to own the animal.
If the ethics of eating matter in the least, then our understanding of animals must begin with this premise. Above all else, we must acknowledge that our shared sentience means that humans have a moral responsibility to treat farm animals differently than we treat objects. Specifically, as the philosopher Gary Francione has argued, all beings capable of suffering are entitled to the “principle of equal consideration.” What this means is that, before using an animal in any way, we should evaluate what’s at stake for everyone involved. We must do so, moreover, on the primary grounds of our shared sentience, thereby downplaying the many differences between humans and farm animals. Just because a farm animal cannot do math or send greeting cards doesn’t mean that its capacity for suffering is in any way fundamentally different from our own.
I admit that making this distinction can be hard. Human accomplishments and abilities seem to so obviously distinguish us that downplaying our differences might appear to be nothing but a philosophical gambit. But consider: The ultimate problem with giving primary moral consideration to the amazing feats that humans can exclusively accomplish is that doing so requires us to assess all humans in such terms as well. In other words, we would have to undertake different evaluations of suffering for the mentally ill, the infirm, infants, the elderly, those with low IQs, etc. If sentience took a back seat to cognitive ability or skill sets, the moral value of human life would become dependent on variations in intelligence and ability. Needless to say, such a moral code would have horrific consequences.
Let me try to bring this argument down to Earth. Say I’m stranded on an island with a pig. And say the island is stocked with an endless supply of fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts—enough to feed us both. Am I justified in killing the pig?
I stopped ingesting and using animal products when I learned there are no valid justifications for doing so; it’s completely unethical. I think this is the realization that will make veganism mainstream, so my activism consists mainly of sharing the facts & reasoning in support of abolition, through my writing and the work of others.
~ Colin Donoghue (November 11, 2011)
Source: Interview with Colin Donoghue, abolitionist activist
Should the immediate Abolitionists ever succeed, in bringing about such an awful result, let them beware lest they themselves, and not the slave-holder, may be offered up first as burnt offering, to the Genius of Fanatacism. Their true object is now palpable, like Erostratus of old, who fired the temple of Diana, to immortalize his name, so would they, build up their fame, upon their destruction of every thing, at present, noble and glorious in our great Republic.
It is true that the almost unanimous voice of our white population now deprecates the conduct of such unprincipled incendiaries, but the public voice cannot prevent the natural and rapid increase of the blacks, nor the secret efforts of the bigots, (whatever these efforts may be.)
~ Richard H. Colfax (1833)
Fat and docile, big and dumb
They look so stupid, they aren’t much fun
Cows aren’t funThey eat to grow, grow to die
Die to be et at the hamburger fry
Cows well doneNobody thunk it, nobody knew
No one imagined the great cow guru
Cows are one
In April 2006, a few months after Hurricane Katrina ripped up the coast of New Orleans, a dear mate and I drove 24 hours south from Wisconsin to live in a lovely grassroots effort called Emergency Communities which served donated food from all over the USA. Since meat, milk, and eggs were perishable, the food was all fresh and vegan. Fresh chicory coffee, cornbread, soyamilk, granola, and fresh greens littered the place. I thought “I could do this for the rest of my life”, and I did. Activism has been a slow climb, and only in 2011 have I finally realized the moral implications of what I know to be true. Once you go vegan, you can never, ever, really go back. I am an abolitionist vegan and will be for the rest of my days; I am involved in a mass research project now, writing a journalistic article which will present abolitionism to a mainstream news audience; and my next endeavor is to study to become a vegan nutritionist.
~ Shannon Tweedie (November 10, 2011)
Source: Interview with Shannon Tweedie, editor of The Abolitionist
99% of us were nonvegan at one time or another. It’s important to remember that. It’s not helpful to call anyone an idiot.
It will not bring any nonvegan watching this conversation closer to veganism. It’s also important to remember that most people are basically good at heart and want to do the right thing if given proper and clear information. This is what we are trying to achieve here—consistent, clear, information about veganism.
~ Trisha Roberts (January 5, 2012)
Source: Trisha’s Facebook comment
While the experience of each individual and each group that has endured oppression and injustice is unique and must be recognized and respected as such, the mindset of those benefiting from the exploitation of others remains remarkably consistent across culture and context, and across the centuries. Pro-slavery advocates systematically worked to manipulate the public into focusing on the manner of treatment, rather than the injustice of the enslavement itself. The parallels with today’s struggle for justice for other-than-human animals are stunning, with industry lies and manipulations shifting the emphasis towards “humane” treatment rather than questioning the privilege of domination itself.
~ James LaVeck (July 9, 2010)
Source: Let’s Not Give Up Before We Even Get Started
