A Justice Movement for Animals

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

*Pinned Post. Newer posts are below this*

Just Us Too is a blog about justice for other species: that we humans can be fair to the rest of the animals with whom we share the planet. I’ve found this to be an often complex and uncertain stance which often demands that we go on something of a learning journey. At least, that has been my experience over the past ten years of my interactions with people from all walks of life and research into the issues.

One significant theme that has emerged has been the recognition that others have their own ideas about what’s best to do and how to be when it comes to our relationships with other animals. Curiously, I found that as I refined my own thinking I came to realise that most of us are on the same ethical page to a greater or lesser extent yet there doesn’t seem to be one easy way to describe just what that ethical page really is. The concept of Veganism seems to me to come the closest, but that label evokes some extremes of opinions and attitudes.

Nonetheless, if I boil it down veganism represents an underlying idea about justice and moral attitudes towards other animals which at its core is the very same idea about how we regard our fellow people. Today, this idea applied to human societies is often framed in terms of human rights which hope to recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe. Such rights are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives.

Can we see any reason not to regard other species in a similar way, whenever we can? It doesn’t seem so. Up to a point, anyway. Just Us Too hopes to contribute to the conversation about just where that point sits, recognising it will be different for each of us. In the end, what you can do to treat other animals fairly depends on where you are, what you do and even what you are not willing to do or change. Really, it’s just us trying to be fair to each other and the other animals too.

Read on…

Veganism for All

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

I believe passionately in the idea that we should want to be as fair as we can to the rest of the animals with whom we share our world and the best way to do that is to be guided by vegan ethical principles. Yet while it seems that many, maybe even most, people often agree that animals should be treated well, most reject veganism. Why is this?

I think it is because veganism is deeply misunderstood by almost everyone, and worse, it has a terrible public image. Perhaps vegan advocacy and messaging has taken too much of an adversarial and even judgemental stance – if there is anything that will put people offside, it’s being told they are bad and they should do better.

In practice, veganism is a purely voluntary and aspirational set of ethical principles that guide us in what’s best to do when our choices affect other animals. No-one has to be vegan nor do they have to conform to any particular standard.

Of course many people do strive to completely eliminate animal products and use from their diets and lifestyle. They might identify as vegans and follow the definition of veganism to the letter as much as possible. The formal definition for veganism can be found on the UK Vegan Society’s website. But in the end, it’s up to you. We all get to make our own choices.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere on my blog that I think vegan advocacy needs a reformation and in particular that advocacy should focus on community engagement, inclusion and encouragement, rather than measuring success by the somewhat dubious metric of people “converted” to veganism. Perhaps we might see more interest from consumers if they can be shown practical ways to make a difference without feeling pressured to become something other than just themselves.

In this post, I want to propose a different way to think about the ethical philsophy that veganism represents in such a way as makes the principles accessible to anyone.

Upfront, I should point out that I do not regard veganism as merely a diet. If veganism really were just a super-strict, animal free diet, it would carry no compelling force at all. We could all just laugh at the idea and get on with things. No, there has to be something more than that – the diet can only be a consequence of whatever it is veganism stands for.

So, what does veganism stand for?

Quite simply,I believe that veganism is the idea that whenever we can, we should want to be fair to other animals and aim to prevent injustices to them from our actions. That’s it.

We could phrase this as:
“Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can.”

But what exactly does it mean to be “fair” to other animals? Well, I think most of us can say what fairness means. At its simplest, it means to regard the interests of others equally and try to be consistent in our actions when they affect others. For example, a pig has just as much interest in being free to roam and do pig things as people like to be free to do people stuff.

Thought of like this, anyone at all can be vegan. All that ever comes into question is how far they are willing to go. Because vegan ethics are relevant in all the ways we treat other animals then as long as someone is being genuine in their efforts to be fair to other animals in their choices, that is veganism in action. And funnily enough, I would even be willing to agree that a carnivore dieter can be vegan in this way. Unlikely, but possible.

Why should anyone want to be fair to other animals? I believe it is because of our modern context. In the distant past, our hunter/gatherer ancestors did not need to be vegan. In fact, I’d suggest they were largely vegan in practice. But things changed about 10,000 years ago and today we do not share the same fundamentally fair relationship with other animals. So, the reason we should want to be fair is that we have an enormous influence over, and effect on, the rest of nature. Just as our ancient ancestors sought to live in some balance with the rest of the animals, I believe we really should want to today.

Why Veganism Reflects Christian Ideals

~ Graeme M ~ 2 Comments

Some Christians criticise vegans and reject veganism, usually on the grounds that God gave humans dominion over the animals and approves their use for food and fibre. However veganism today is not simply a strict diet but rather it is an ethical stance about how to treat the animals. So, just how far is veganism from Christian values? Let’s find out.

In Genesis, we learn that God created a world that was “very good” and He caused there to be the animals of nature and the man and woman whom He created in His own image. Adam and Eve were given dominion over nature and the animals and directed to subdue the earth. On the face of it, God seems to be saying that people can do what they like with the world, but it seems unlikely that God – whose very nature is to be just and compassionate – would want people to treat the natural world irresponsibly.

Perhaps we need to know just what the Bible says about this dominion that people have over nature. The original Hebrew word used to describe the dominion awarded to Adam and Eve is “radah”. Many writers interpret radah to mean that we should rule over nature by managing it and the animals responsibly, consistently with God’s own nature. Creation matters to God and the animals in the world are His, not ours to do with as we please. This sounds very much more likely than to interpret radah as meaning something more akin to a “treading down”, a rule by exploitative force without care or respect for those ruled.

I believe that the Bible tells us we are to be responsible managers of Creation in God’s image, not that we have a licence to exploit and harm it from our own selfish desires. As God’s own nature is to be just and compassionate, should we imagine that our duty towards animals is not the same in essence? God allows us to use animals when we must, but He expects us to do so responsibly and fairly and we are free to make the best choices.

Veganism on the other hand is a modern secular idea about how people should treat other animals. Nowadays we know that many other animals are sentient beings similar to humans in many ways and they can be affected either negatively or positively by our actions. As sentient beings, animals exist for their own ends; that is, they have evolved to maximise their opportunities and to flourish within their particular ecological niche. Like human beings they have an inherent value and dignity as ends in themselves and should be regarded as such, rather than as mere means to our own ends.

Modern veganism is therefore an ethical framework that recognises the value and dignity of animal lives and guides us when evaluating all the ways our actions affect them. This ethics aims to treat animals fairly and with compassion by our choices whenever we can and to protect them from injustice at our hands. One possible practical approach is that of animals rights – we make fair choices when we seek to protect the basic rights of other animals. You can read what this means here.

So, let’s take stock.

Christians are charged with managing nature and the animals responsibly in a manner consistent with God’s own nature in whose image we are made. Given God’s essential nature is to be just and fair, we seem bound to be fair to other animals in whom there exists an inherent value and dignity, given they are the results of God’s good works and are pleasing to Him.

Veganism is a secular notion about encouraging justice in the ways people deal with other animals. At its simplest, veganism guides us to be fair to other animals because as sentient beings they have inherent value and dignity.

Ultimately, any genuine attempt to steward animals justly in accord with God’s nature seems likely to lead Christians to similar practice as secular veganism, for the simple reason both deliver on the same commitment. People should wish to treat other animals fairly and seek to protect them from injustice at our hands, whenever we can. Secularly, because they are ends in themselves just as we are and in Christ because God gave us this responsibility to His creation.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Christians should be vegan (though I don’t think God would object). The way I see it, when Christians honour their faith and their Lord they will do works that treat animals compassionately, fairly and with justice, just as veganism guides non-Christians to treat animals compassionately, fairly and with justice. In the end, Christians and vegans are much more alike in this regard than it might appear.

Why Death is Not a Harm to Another Animal but Killing Might be Wrong

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

I regard veganism as an ethical stance – that is, veganism is the idea that we include other animals within the scope of our moral concern to treat others fairly and deliver them justice when we can. On rights-based grounds, we can argue that this means we should strive not to violate their basic rights whenever possible. Many people argue this means that – as with people – animals have a right to life. I don’t agree. To see why, I want to explain why I believe death does not harm us but killing might be wrong.

There are two schools of thought about death. On the one hand, it is claimed that death cannot harm us for the simple reason that once dead, we no longer exist. On the other, death harms us by thwarting our plans for the future and robs us of our potential.

I agree with the former view – harm describes a state that only the living can experience. When we seek to prevent others being harmed, we mean that we hope for them to enjoy the good and not suffer the bad. However, that which does not exist cannot experience either the good or the bad. While the process of death can harm us, death itself cannot.

Does this mean that killing another is not a harm? Yes, I would say that is true. Of course the process can cause harm and this can be a wrong while someone lives, but once dead there is no-one to experience any harm. For the individual, being killed does not matter in and of itself (though how that affects the still living might).

Why then should we strive not to kill? I suggest that the reason we should not kill another is because to do so would be to thwart their plans for the future. While being dead and no longer able to achieve one’s goals is not a harm, we should know that when we kill another we are deliberately thwarting their plans and interests. This is an injustice on our part. The wrongness in killing comes not from any harm to our victim but rather from the injustice we aim to perpetrate.

Simply put, when we act to kill someone we set out with the intention of depriving them of future experiences and that is not fair. It is unfair for the same reasons we are acting unjustly any time we seek to thwart someone’s plans without good cause.

To summarise then, death is not a harm for anyone (though the process itself can be). Killing someone is wrong not because it harms them but because we act unjustly when we set out without good cause to thwart their plans for the future. This is unfair. Because veganism asks us to be fair to other animals and prevent injustice, it is wrong to kill other animals without just cause.

Note: Some animals may not have plans for the future of the kind that demand this kind of moral concern on our part (eg many invertebrates). We may have a different kind of moral concern for such animals and many other things in the world but this is not directly within the scope of veganism. Nothing prevents us respecting both kinds of concern.

Crop Deaths Revisited – Why a Vegan-Friendly Diet is Likely to be Least Harm

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

(Three minute read)

Lately it seems every vegan critic wants to point to animal deaths in cropping to expose the hypocrisy of vegans. Here, I provide a brief analysis of why this is not the criticism many think it is.

Summary:

To find out if more animals are killed for a typical vegan-friendly diet versus a typical omnivore’s diet, we are only interested in the number of animals killed on the area of land needed to grow crops to replace animal food in the omnivore diet. It turns out just one tenth of a hectare is required. Few useful estimates of the animals killed to grow crops can be found. One of the highest estimates came from Mike Archer in 2011 when he claimed 100 animals are killed per hectare per year. This means a vegan-friendly diet might cause about 10 animals to be killed each year to replace animals in someone’s diet. The average omnivore causes about 50-100 animals to be killed directly and some number of others as part of that process. A vegan-friendly diet is likely to be the least harm option.

*******************************************************

The Full Story:

First, a little background. Veganism is not merely a diet but rather the idea that we should include other animals within the scope of our moral concern to treat others fairly and deliver them justice whenever we can. While many people believe that veganism is about doing the least harm or even no harm to animals. I would say it is not specifically trying to do that. It’s about doing what we can to be fair to other animals when possible. And sometimes, we have to harm other animals just like we sometimes must with other people. For example, very few people would say that we should not kill mosquitoes to protect people from malaria or that we should not cull wild populations when necessary. By the same token we can kill pests in agriculture when necessary.

But let’s cut to the chase. Are more animals killed for someone to eat a vegan-friendly, plants-only diet than for someone to eat an omnivore diet? The answer is hard to untangle because no-one knows for sure. There just is not much empirical research. We do know that few large animals are killed incidentally in croplands from activities like harvesting and tilling. Many more are killed by farmers controlling pests, but here the evidence is very sketchy.

What studies have been done of animal mortality in croplands don’t document animals being killed in crop cultivation. Indeed, it’s relatively uncommon to find peer-reviewed research documenting such an outcome. Tellingly, a wheat farmer in the UK once blogged about this very problem, hoping to document the deaths of many animals in a year’s worth of production. He failed to record even one (ignoring invertebrates, though we will come to that concern).

It turns out that estimates of cropland mortality vary. This problem was originally noted in a famous paper by Steven Davis back in 2003. He found that just 15 animals per hectare are killed on US croplands. Later still, Professor Mike Archer from the University of New South Wales claimed up to 100 animals are killed per hectare in Australian wheat fields (this was later claimed to be an exaggeration and revised to just 1.27 animals per hectare). And a blogger called Farming Truth once argued that as many as 117 animals die per hectare in the US.

But raw numbers may be misleading. When we think about this problem, we can be confident that most people are eating a variety of foods of both plant and animal origin. People directly eat grains, seeds, nuts, fruits and vegetables or derived foods such as bread, buns, cakes, French fries, sugar, wine, beer, herbs and spices and so on.

So, very nearly all of us are eating plants. The animals killed to grow those plants is a shared cost. While Jack the vegan eats plants and as a result animals are killed to grow this food, Jill the omnivore does the same. If we want to find out if Jack overall causes more animals to be harmed, we only need to work out how many animals are killed for the plants needed to replace animals in his diet and compare that to how many animals are killed for Jill to eat animals in her diet.

Most estimates suggest Jill will eat somewhere around 50-100 animal per year, but it could be much higher (perhaps 200). This is because fish and other sea food (eg shrimp) are animals too. And don’t forget, we could also include as part of her toll on other animals the pests (such as feral dogs, pigs and deer) killed by animal farmers and the by-catch and incidental deaths (eg macerated chicks) killed in the production of animal foods. Lastly, many of the animals people eat are raised in concentrated animal feed operations which are fed from crops often grown for that purpose. Farmers kill pests in all situations, whether when growing crops for human food, for animal feed, or raising animals for food.

Jack on the other hand needs about one tenth of a hectare of land to produce the plant food that could replace animals in his diet. Even when we use the highest estimate of 100 animals killed per hectare in croplands made by Mike Archer (and since shown to be an exaggeration), we find Jack will cause just 10 animals to be killed for his food.

It seems very likely that on average, Jack’s diet is the least harmful.

Wait, you say, what about all the invertebrates killed in crop farming? Well, this is an open question because we just don’t know enough. Many farmed animals are found in mixed systems that also grow crops, farmed animals kill other small animals by walking on them, farmers treat ruminants for lice/fleas and other parasites, and small animals are killed to grow feed for farmed animals, including growing and harvesting of hay and silage.

Also, veganism is not specifically concerned with every kind of animal. Sure people can take it that way, but realistically we are most concerned with sentient animals. Many invertebrates just may not be sentient in the ways that count. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the harm to invertebrate species or to the environment and biosphere, but those are different concerns. Concern for the fair treatment of sentient beings can co-exist with more general concerns about other matters, just as concern for human rights abuses doesn’t mean we can’t also worry about pollution of the oceans.

In the end it seems likely that a typical vegan-friendly diet is best if we want to reduce harms to other animals and be fairer to the sentient animals we farm.

That said, someone can certainly make choices that do even better if least harm is their only metric. For example, a carnivore dieter who takes considerable care to source their food from ethical and sustainable sources and thus can be confident that they have caused the deaths of just a handful of large animals in a year is on solid ground. On my rights-based stance that doesn’t necessarily fly but for many people, least harm as a principle carries weight.

Of course, what you choose to do is up to you.

Veganism As An Animal Rights Matter

~ Graeme M ~ 3 Comments

I have argued that veganism is the idea that we have moral concern for other sentient species. I would summarise this as saying that veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and encourages us to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can.

We already do this in regard to other people and one notable way that we frame this is via human rights. Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe. They are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives.

While there are any number of moral theories that set out to provide reasons for treating other animals well, I take the view that a rights-based approach can work as well as any. So, on the grounds I presented above, I suggest that veganism aims to treat other animals fairly by endorsing the principle that we behave as though other animals have the same basic rights as other people, whenever we can.

These basic rights for animals are the rights to be free and not property, in control of their own lives, and not to be treated cruelly. While the UK Vegan Society (which invented the concept of veganism) does describe veganism as a meat free diet, the history of the Society shows that ending unfair animal use and harm was a significant – if not the main – priority. We can therefore derive the current Vegan Society definition for veganism from the rights-based position I advocate.

Note that I am not saying that other species have rights, but rather that when we behave as though they have these rights, we are more likely to make choices that respect them and consequently be fairer in the ways our actions affect them.

By way of example, if we agree that it is not fair to own animals, to treat them as an object of production, to limit their ability to pursue their life on their own terms and to treat them cruelly, we would choose not to buy products from intensive animal farming operations. Alternatively, if we believe we must consume animal products, we should prefer to buy from those enterprises that violate these rights the least (and thereby are fairer in their treatment of the animals concerned).

A Brief History Of Veganism And Where To From Here

~ Graeme M ~ 5 Comments

(Image from UK Vegan Society website)

(Four minute read)

Humans are moral creatures and we have been working out morality for most of our existence, though with the focus squarely on our own species. Having moral regard for other animals on the other hand is a more recent phenomenon, perhaps as recent as the past several thousand years. For example, some ancient Greek philosophers held that other animals deserve our moral regard when working out what’s best to do when our actions affect them.

Over the years attitudes to this idea have fluctuated from disregard to quite determined support for fairer treatment of animals. One famous example is the concern over vivisection in Britain during the 19th century. The anti-vivisection movement, largely led by women, became one of the prominent social activist causes of the time. It was not uncommon in those times for people to regard other animals as almost unfeeling automatons.

For some time there have been people we would loosely describe as vegetarians. The Jains in India for several thousand years have believed in the principle of non-violence, including all living things within their scope. In Britain, the Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847 as a natural follow on from growing interest in moral concern for other animals. The Vegetarian Society promoted a meat-free diet for its members. Even today, the Society claims to be “UK’s original and leading voice for the vegetarian and vegan movement… driven by their convictions and hungry for change”.

In the late 1940s, some members of the Vegetarian Society sought to go further and promoted the idea of dairy-free, egg-free vegetarianism. Donald Watson and several others formed a sub-group which promoted a “vegan” diet. The term “vegan” was formed from the first and last letters of “vegetarian”. The first newsletter appeared in 1945 and the Vegan Society came into being.

The Vegan Society’s main aim was for members to avoid any animal products as food, but it also encouraged members to avoid the use of “animal commodities”. However, while its original meaning largely referred to diet, the idea for veganism came from an underlying motivation to treat other animals better. That is, veganism embraced the moral belief that humans should free animals from human use and ill-treatment and restore a fairer relationship with them.

The original definition Watson offered was:

  • VEGANISM is the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products.
  • VEGANISM excludes as human food: flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals’ milk, butter and cheese.
  • VEGANISM aims at encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal products.

Watson himself was vegan on compassionate and health grounds, believing as he did that a vegan diet was best for human health. While he had a vision for what veganism might mean, he didn’t remain with the Vegan Society very long. By 1949 Watson had no further active involvement in the Society.

At the November 1948 General Meeting, Leslie J Cross was elected to the committee. Cross was an emancipationist, which today we would think of as an animal rights advocate. He believed that the Vegan Society should be more vocal in support of animal emancipation, ie animal rights. Cross introduced a new Constitution in 1950 and proposed a new definition for Veganism:

  • The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man… The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals… The Society pledges itself in pursuance of its object to seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man.

There followed a rather up and down time for some years during which the definition of veganism and what people wanted it to represent changed often. Broadly speaking, it swung back and forth between being primarily about diet and health to being about animal rights first and foremost. Interestingly, membership seemed to rise and fall in concert with this – more members when diet-focused while fewer members when rights-focused.

In 1962, the definition became:

  • Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom ….

The definition ever since has largely remained true to the aim of preventing animal exploitation and cruelty. Of course, people didn’t think in terms of “animal rights” as such in those early days but rather in general terms of “emancipation” of animals from human mistreatment. Animal rights as a concept really emerged in the 1970s, probably in response to Peter Singer’s controversial and influential book Animal Liberation. Singer also introduced to a wider audience the idea of “speciesism”, a term first coined in 1970 by British psychologist Richard Ryder.

Interestingly, vegan societies in other countries varied from the UK Society with most focusing primarily on a plant-based diet rather than an animal rights motivation. The American Vegan Society was founded by Jay Dinshah in 1960. This organisation focused on veganism as a plant-based diet but introduced Ahimsa as the basis for its beliefs about animal treatment. That remains the case to this day with the AVS describing veganism as a lifestyle that embraces eating only plants while integrating Ahimsa into one’s everyday life. Ahimsa is a spiritual tradition common to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, expressing the ethical principle of not causing harm to living things.

Today, the UK Vegan Society definition is:

  • Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

While the definition, meaning and enactment of veganism has varied over the years, progress in the broader field of animal protection and rights consideration has similarly been evolving. Today there exists a deep and comprehensive literature around the matter as well as many highly influential thinkers whose ideas have ranged across notions of care, compassion, protection and rights.

This suggests to me that the core idea that we should have moral concern for other sentient species has taken solid root. It is no longer odd to consider this as a major feature of our relations with other species and significant progress has been made both in general philosophical terms as well as hard legislative reform.

However, I believe that in the public mind, the field remains somewhat uncertain and ill-defined. Veganism in particular seems to address and be concerned with diet, health, the environment and animal rights. Veganism today is a global movement of sorts that has well and truly outgrown its beginnings to the extent that the original UK Vegan Society is today a minor player. Yet for many, the Society sets the bar for what veganism IS.

My own view is that we need a basic reformation of the concept and its practice and promotion. When we strip all of these ideas down to their most basic form, we find that veganism as an ethical concern and animal rights as a concept are facets of one underlying moral motivation – that we should be fair to other animals whenever we can. Our relationship with other species should be marked by fairness and justice to the extent that is reasonably possible. How we might do this is open to discussion and informed debate, but as a fundamental feature of human relations with other animals I think this is how we should now think about our obligations to other species.

Given the long history and now deeply entrenched awareness of veganism, I believe that veganism remains the best term available to us to describe our moral obligation to other species, but suggest that a change in the public perception is needed for broader public engagement. I am not proposing a change to the several definitions of veganism, but rather that we come to believe that veganism embraces all possible ways that we can aim to do right by our fellow beings. Veganism is, if you like, the domain of moral concern for other sentient species, equivalent to the fundamental idea that we owe moral regard to the animals our actions affect.

“Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can”

Read more:

So Why Veganism?

Does Vegan Advocacy Need A Reform?

My Vegan Elevator Pitch

Does Vegan Advocacy Need A Reformation?

~ Graeme M ~ 2 Comments

(Two minute read)

I believe that veganism is the single most rational and effective strategy for conducting ethical relations with other species. To recap, I take the position that veganism is the idea that we are under a duty to act with justice and fairness towards other sentient species as far as possible. In other words, veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can. A simple way to think about this is to regard other animals as attracting the same three basic rights as do people (ie the rights to be free and not owned, to be able to live one’s own life and not to be treated cruelly). We make fair decisions for other animals whenever we seek to respect and protect those rights. This boils down to very much the same definition as that of the UK Vegan Society.

Unfortunately, this is not how veganism is generally understood nor how it is usually promoted. Instead, too much vegan advocacy is shrouded in judgement, forceful criticism and rejection of everyday feelings about the world. As well, most people think of veganism as merely a super strict diet.

As a result of this poor and fractured public image, veganism appeals to very few people. Worse, the word seems to evoke an almost irrational reaction that borders on hatred towards “vegans” (people who endorse veganism). This is incredibly sad given what I said above about the value of the idea as a rational and effective ethical framework for all of us.

Advocacy group Pax Fauna observed in recent research:

“Vegetarians and vegans, however, remain deeply unpopular. Omnivores view veg*ns more negatively than several groups which are commonly targets of prejudice, including Black people, immigrants, and atheists… Negative feelings are stronger towards vegans than vegetarians, and towards veg*ns motivated by animal suffering or environmental concerns as opposed to those motivated by health.”

How can this overwhelmingly negative attitude be turned around? Perhaps the times call for a radical reformation of the public face of veganism and associated messaging to build on the progress and gains of the recent past. Only by winning over citizens to believe that treating other animals fairly is important, indeed necessary, are we really likely to see greater progress. However, winning people over is rarely achieved by pointing out their shortcomings.

If current strategies are failing to encourage general agreement with veganism and doing little to change public attitudes, a new strategy is needed. The way I see it, far too much weight is being placed on the tactic of complete individual conversion to veganism. Too often, success is measured by the number of people becoming vegan, yet so far at least very few people do this and the vast majority reject the idea out of hand. Worse, many vegans eventully abandon their veganism.

My suggestion then is to focus instead on encouraging a more positive community attitude to veganism. That is, the aim of vegan advocacy should not be converting people to veganism (with often doubtful results) but rather promoting a more positive public attitude to how we regard and treat other animals. How this could be done is open to debate, but I would take the tack of providing an educative and guiding role more than anything else. For example, one could conduct street advocacy where people can learn more, ask questions and even contribute their own perspectives without being judged. The very well known Earthling Ed offers a fine example of this kind of advocacy.

I’d even go a step further and NOT measure success by individual conversion to veganism and thus strict and complete adherence to a vegan lifestyle, but rather by engagement, interest, willingness to discuss and by whether or not participants in discussions depart on good terms. In other words, success is measured by the extent to which public attitudes to veganism (justice for other animals) are positive, enquiring and supportive, even if the public remain by and large not strict vegans. The long game is important.

For now, veganism is not required by the law and all that anyone can do is make the changes in their life they are willing to make. It seems important that we celebrate the small steps and encourage even the slightest inquisitiveness about justice for other animals. And more than that, I hope for greater public engagement with the simple idea that we regard other animals as more than objects to be used however we like.

I expand further on this idea in my other posts below:

So Why Veganism?

Is it Time to Focus More on People and Less on Vegans?

What are “Strong” and “Weak” Veganism?

Should Vegans and Animal Rights Advocates Support Better Welfare in Animal Farming?

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

The simple answer: Yes.

The longer answer: Many animal advocates express concern and outrage at the way animals are treated in even high welfare animal farming operations and certainly there are many examples where “welfare” practices are more about expedience and productivity than the well-being of the animals. However, while we can question some practices, the larger question is, should we openly encourage and support farmers to provide good welfare for their animals or is this tacitly endorsing animal exploitation?

At the heart of this question seems to be the idea of abolitionism vs welfarism, an idea that has been expressed most strongly by animal rights advocate Gary Francione and his stance against what he terms “New Welfarism”. Welfarism is the idea that animal use is acceptable, providing the animals are well cared for. Abolitionism on the other hand is the idea that the foundational right that other animals should attract is the right not to be property (ie to be free) and hence no animal use is morally acceptable, regardless of how well cared for the animals might be.

Welfarism does not necessarily demand an end to animal use, while abolitionism does. Francione worries that by combining the two ideas, we dilute the effectiveness of campaigning for animal liberation (ie, abolition of animal using industries). Such a combination he refers to as “New Welfarism”.

New welfarism is thus an approach which advocates for improving animal welfare whilst still aiming for animal rights and abolition of animal use. Francione is critical of this ‘soft option’ and argues that to ever achieve anything the animal rights movement needs to focus only the ultimate goal of total animal liberation and nothing else.

Moreover, Francione argues that by advocating for, and supporting, better welfare practices we are in essence condoning animal use. The idea that we should think that animal use is acceptable so long as the animals are treated well is a pernicious one to be resisted at all costs. Welfarists are not commited to abolishing animal use and hence have no place within a genuine rights-based framework.

Is this a reasonable strategy? My own view is that no, it isn’t because I believe it confuses welfare with welfarism. The former is entirely consistent with a rights-based framework for our relationship with other species, the latter disregards these rights. This is because when we worry about the wellbeing of animals we are not necessarily committing to the belief that their use and exploitation is acceptable.

To explain further, it is my view that we owe other species the same basic rights as we owe human beings, whenever we can do so (or choose to). The reason for the somewhat optional stance here is because for now, such rights are not formalised at law and hence the best any of us can do is choose to act as though these rights exist.

These basic rights – the rights to be free, in control of one’s own life and not to be treated cruelly – should serve to guide us in our actions. Because these three basic rights give rise to the concept of veganism (and indeed directly underpin the definition of veganism), vegans therefore are people who behave as though other animals have these rights (ie vegans seek to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals).

How does this guide us in relation to animal welfare?

Generally speaking, vegans will not support animal-using industries when they can choose otherwise because these industries typically violate all three basic rights. This lack of support usually takes the form of not buying products from animal-using industries so as to remove the stimulus for continued production.

If everyone followed this strategy, then clearly the animal-using industries would cease because economic support is withdrawn. However, for now this is not stopping animals being bred into the system and so there are animals in these industries whose most important basic rights have been violated. The only remaining right that people can help protect is their right not to be treated cruelly.

Therefore, while there are farmed animals, vegans seem to remain under a duty to advocate for better welfare in order to be consistent with the aim to prevent cruelty. By advocating for better welfare one is not endorsing the use of animals in animal-using industries but rather seeking to minimise violations of living animals’ rights (ie the right not to be treated cruelly). Of course, as noted above vegans are still not going to buy products from these industries, no matter how good the welfare.

We can see therefore that these industries would not continue just because these same non-consumers support their welfare efforts. On the other hand, a genuine welfarist – who argues that animal use is fine so long as welfare is fine – would continue to stimulate production with their economic support.

On these grounds, I think vegans should advocate for farmers to maximise welfare. In fact, some typical practices that vegans disapprove of should be endorsed rather than criticised. Let me offer two examples to which vegans/activists frequently object.

The first is AI (Artificial Insemination) in dairy farming. Critics regularly refer to this using highly perjorative language, frequently using human sensibilities to describe this procedure. It is not uncommon to see advocates/activists talking about “rape”, “rape racks”, “fisting” and so on in order to cast the famers who use AI as something akin to sexual offenders. Clearly the aim is to arouse a negative sentiment in the observer such that they might be willing to consider abandoning dairy products.

I can understand the reasoning but given the actual benefits of AI in this context, it seems unfair to criticise farmers for doing this. Worse, it encourages anti-vegan objectors to ridicule activists for conflating human moral concerns with animals (and the consequent risk that activists are regarded as minimising concerns for human issues).

Instead I suggest that to be consistent with our duty to respect the rights of other animals, surely we should want farmers to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the overal wellbeing of their animals, once they exist? In the case of dairy AI, the benefits include minmising the risk to the cow of being injured during mating, the use of sexed semen to minimise the problem of bobby calves, while also helping to reduce the risk of disease transmission to the calf, ensure adequate colostrum and feed intake, and to simplify disease detection.

Another example is the use of studded nose-rings in calves to prevent them suckling. Activists point to this as particularly inhumane and on the surface, it does look that way. Imagine hooking a pointed object into a calf’s nose to prevent it suckling from its mother? This seems the height of cruelty. Yet is it really?

As I understand it, these are mainly used on beef farms where calves do remain with their mothers until weaning. On dairy farms calves are typically separated from their mothers very early on (and this itself is a welfare measure).

The reason farmers use these rings is because calves don’t wean naturally on a farm. They will continue to suckle, which means the mother will continue to produce milk. Just as humans can physically produce milk for 5 or more years if a mother continues to feed her toddler and preschool aged child, a cow will also continue to produce while being suckled – but often at the detriment of her own health.

In the wild, the young would either be pushed out of the herd if male (to go find its own herd), or if female impregnated by the dominant male! On a farm, there are three options for weaning: complete separation while young (as in a dairy), separation at weaning age (between 5 and 12 months depending on the farm process), or using a device like this to allow the mother and calf to stay together but allow weaning.

While it might seem that the nose ring is the crueler of the three options, it’s actually the option that causes the least stress to both mother and calf. Weaning by separation causes a lot more stress on both in the short term but is completed much quicker. But it also requires a bigger land opportunity. You can’t just move either mother or calf into a different paddock if they are still in eyesight or earshot of each other as they will break through fences to get back to each other.

In the wild, nature takes care of itself through harsh measures. In domestic situations, humans must intervene and simulate the conditions that would occur in the wild. The nose ring (which is plastic and is a squeeze fit rather than a pierced fit) pemits a safe and efective way to wean the calf while allowing both to remain in contact.

In closing, let me hasten to add I am not proposing that vegans and animal rights activists advocate for welfare on the grounds that this make animal use perfectly fine. On the contrary, we should wish to prevent animal farming whenever that is possible – good welfare does not mean that we have the right to indiscriminate use of other animals. Rather, I am suggesting that to respect the rights of animals that do exist on farms, we should support policies and standards that aim to improve their welfare. When such conditions fall short, we should call attention to these failings and seek better.

What are “Strong” and “Weak” Veganism?

~ Graeme M ~ 1 Comment

A few people have taken us to task for promoting the idea that people do not have to be strict vegans. Or as we have put it, that people can adopt “weak” veganism. I would like to explain what we mean by “strong” and “weak” veganism.

The core concept that guides us here at JustUs Too is that veganism is not some fringe idea or strange new moral philosophy. Rather, we see it as the name given to the idea that we extend moral consideration to other species. More exactly, we think of veganism as regarding other animals as having the same basic three rights as people – the rights to be free, to in control of one’s own life and not to be treated cruelly.

Why “rights”? Well, it’s because we believe that in a similar fashion to the concept of human rights, rights for other animals is simply a way of describing how we should wish to treat them. Rights represent essential moral principles that we think can be applied not only to people but also other animals.

Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe. They are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives. Likewise, regarding other animals as having these same basic rights is a way to recognise the inherent value and dignity of other species and aim to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can (or choose to).

With this in mind, let’s look at the generally accepted definition for veganism. The UK Vegan Society defines veganism as:

“A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Most vegan advocates believe in following this definition in a very strict fashion. They simply refuse to buy or use anything derived from another animal as much as they possibly can. Many will not, for example, eat a potato chip cooked in the same oil as a piece of chicken or they will refuse to eat oysters because oysters are an animal. This is a very simple and easy way to interpret and adopt veganism as a direction for living. We call this “strong” veganism and it is available to anyone.

However, the definition for veganism can be seen to rest upon the same basic rights-based foundation that we promote here at JustUs Too. The UK Vegan Society’s definition explicitly states that the aim is to prevent all forms of exploitation and cruelty to animals, which is precisely what the three basic human rights set out to achieve for humans and which – when applied to other animals – achieves what the Vegan Society aims to achieve by veganism.

Now, in many countries, human rights are enforced at law and so we can expect a fairly standard range of behaviours from members of these societies. However, such rights for animals are not generally enforced at law and people are free to make their own choices about whether they respect these rights. In that way, “animal rights” do not necessarily mean that everyone will adopt the same behaviours or make the same choices. For some people, it may be just too hard in their particular circumstances or they may simply not be willing to go that far.

However just because someone cannot or doesn’t want to be a strict vegan doesn’t mean that they have to give up entirely on being fair to other animals whenever they can. Rather they can use the concept of animal rights as a guide to what to do when it comes to their actions, such as buying decisions. For example, while animals on farms may not be truly free or able to exercise bodily autonomy, they may be relatively free to live natural lives and they may be treated well. Buying products from these farms may be considered a fairer act than economically supporting CAFO systems.

We call this “weak” veganism. Anyone at all can adopt the guiding principles of veganism – basic rights for other animals – and so long as they genuinely mean to do what they can to treat other animals fairly then we believe they are acting consistently with the principles of veganism.

To offer an admittedly extreme example, someone may have decided that for their health they will adopt a carnivore diet. Now, on the face of it this is directly inconsistent with veganism, but just the same that doesn’t mean that they cannot want to make fair decisions about what they do. They might still choose to buy products not tested on animals, they may buy only second hand leather and woollen products, they could even buy meat from high welfare grazed animal systems. We would regard such a person as endorsing weak veganism.

To sum up then, strong veganism is when someone follows the UK Vegan Society’s definition to the letter, while weak veganism is when someone uses the underlying moral principles to guide the choices they make. In the end, people are free to make whatever choices they wish but aiming to be fair to other animals is within everyone’s reach.

JustUs Too encourages everyone to want to be fair to other animals.