Unlike other animals, humans have moral agency – we care about what’s right and wrong. We’ve been developing this quality for thousands of years with the goal of making life go well not just for ourselves, but other people too.
We can also extend this moral concern to other animals. To some degree or another, that’s been a hallmark of human attitudes to other animals for much of our existence, but in recent times moral thinkers have refined just how we might go about this (and how far our concern should extend).
One notable step forward in this regard was the formation of the UK Vegan Society in 1945 from which came both the concept of veganism and one’s personal identity as vegan. Cutting a long story short, the founders of veganism were hoping to free animals from their harmful and unfair use by people and by so doing help advance the human condition. This sense of veganism was somewhat driven by emotional and moral reactions to World War II.
Veganism is a secular ideology – it doesn’t depend on a faith-based outlook – so anyone at all can be guided by its principles. Those principles have been refined and expanded in meaning since 1945 by later ideas such as animal rights and animal protection. But at the heart of all of this remains the core belief that human beings can care about how life goes for other animals.
“Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can.”
Boiled down into everyday terms, I am proposing that veganism is the moral baseline for human treatment of other animals. At its simplest, veganism gives rise to just two core principles – that whenever we can, we should keep animals free and and protected from our cruel treatment so that life goes well for them.
This is not to redefine veganism as it was originally thought of by the founders of the UK Vegan Society. Rather, it makes much more explicit just what they intended in their own ethical and moral attitudes to animals, and by extension, the improvement of the human condition.
I offer one caveat to this. Veganism, so regarded, remains for now a personal and voluntary ethical program (no-one has to be a vegan). Everyone is free to adopt vegan ethics as they see fit, according to their own motivations and circumstances. This means that there is no action someone can take that seeks to make the lives of sentient animals go well for them, just by virtue of their own existence, that is not at least in part consistent with veganism.
For example, animal welfare regulation (particularly when it reflects current thinking such as the Five Freedoms or A life Worth Living) seeks to ensure that we are not cruel to animals when we can do that, so it is partially enacting at law one of the core principles of veganism. Likewise, philosophies such as Ethical Omnivorism are deeply anchored to those very same core principles. In that way, the Ethical Omnivore Movement remains a practical application of veganism (though to be clear, the Ethical Omnivore philosophy denies the core aim of veganism for animals to be completely free, thus Ethical Omnivores are NOT vegans).
Let me be clear – I do not mean that ancient hunter-gatherer peoples were vegans. Of course they weren’t, not in the spirit of the modern meaning of veganism where “vegans” are people who do not use animals and/or animal-based products.
But let’s look a little deeper. Veganism has just two aims – that animals are free, and protected from our cruelty and unfair use when we can do that. In other words, veganism is an ethical framework – a set of ethical principles based on the belief that other animals deserve our moral concern – which seeks to let other animals be free, have bodily autonomy, not be used unfairly and not treated cruelly, to the extent that’s possible.
If animals are owned and used for exploitative purposes, such as horses in commercial horse racing or trained animals in circuses or farmed animals for food and fibres, then clearly they aren’t free. So long as those industries exist, those animals will never be free. Withdrawing economic support – which is what vegans do – will not cause the animals to be freed but rather for fewer to be created by those industries. If those industries disappeared then no more animals would exist in those industries. The animals left in the world would be free. We should remember that by and large in the case of exploitative animal-using industries, the aim of veganism is not to “save” animals, but to prevent them existing in the first place.
Importantly, while vegan ethics propose that we shouldn’t eat or use animals when alternatives exist, if there are no alternatives it is quite permissible to do so. Vegan ethical principles do not demand that we starve to death rather than eat an animal.
Taking all of this together, it is clear that in ancient times, the wild animals in the world were all free. The humans that existed had few alternatives and eating and using animals was necessary. They simply did not have the knowledge, nor the reason, to adopt a hands-off approach to their relations with other animals. Were they cruel? Very probably, but within the context of the times perhaps understandable. The scale of cruelty in those times was many orders of magnitude less than we practice today.
In the end, ancient hunter/gatherers lived consistently with the aims of veganism to the extent that was possible or practicable for their time and context. Our ancestors were vegan, at least in the sense I have described. While they were not actual vegans, people today can be – or at the least, be guided in their choices by vegan ethical principles.
JD Garland is a Youtuber who criticises vegans and veganism, largely on the grounds that veganism is a toxic religion rather than a genuine moral philosophy. His favoured tactic is to claim that a wholly plant-based diet is far more harmful to animals than any other diet. Unfortunately he rather misrepresents veganism – it’s a moral philosophy together with supporting ethical principles which is constrained by both real world conditions and personal willingness – so his criticisms frequently address strawman arguments.
In his latest two videos, “New! Crop Deaths Proof Veganism is a Lie” parts 1 and 2 he hopes to provide yet more evidence for his claim that veganism is really BAD. The following short critique responds to his basic argument.
Garland claims that because a vegan-friendly, plants-only diet requires crops to be grown AND many animals are killed to grow these crops, such a diet is maximally harmful and worse for animals than any other diet. In particular he argues that a vegan diet requires far more crops to be grown than is the case now.
While this is the overall flavour of these videos, Garland’s main contentions here are that most crops are NOT grown for animal feed and that a vegan diet is not cruelty free, ie that vegans are also responsible for a great many animals being harmed and killed. I agree. However, this is not a knock-down argument that completely defuses the value of veganism. In fact, IF one is worried by the degree of harm to animals from cropping, vegans are doing better than most (we should bear in mind that veganism addresses all the ways we humans interact with other animals, so there is ample scope for vegan ethics to offer significant positive benefits for other species beyond the food system).
The reasoning for this conclusion – that a vegan diet is significantly less harmful to animals than a typical Western diet – is straight-forward.
First, a typical western consumer will eat between 50 and 100, possibly as many as 200 animals in a year, plus however many animals are killed as a by-product of production systems (eg chicks and hens killed in egg production, seafood by-catch, etc). On average, none of this happens for a vegan diet.
Second, as well as food derived from animals, most people also eat foods derived from plants – fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, oils, bread, french fries, cakes, pasta, breakfast cereals, juices, jams and other spreads, beer, wine, sugar, etc. Plus, the animals they eat also eat plants. This means that while a vegan-friendly diet has a cropland footprint, so too does that of the typical consumer.
For a vegan-friendly diet to be more harmful than a typical Western diet, it must have a greater cropland footprint. Most research suggests it does not. The crops grown to feed a typical consumer include that used directly for their food and that used to feed the animals they eat. On average, it seems a typical Western diet requires about 0.20-0.25 hectares per year (a more meat heavy than average diet may use even more), while a plant-based diet requires about 0.12-0.15 hectares. This means that a vegan-friendly diet requires approximately 30% less cropland.
Now we can take a look at the arguments put forward in these two new videos. I suggest that overall, the videos are inaccurate and misrepresent the research presented as evidence. They fail to demonstrate that either more cropland is required for a global plant-based diet or that a vegan diet is more harmful on average.
At 0:15. The claim being made is that the majority of crops are grown for human food and not to feed animals. This is true. BUT, a significant proportion is grown for feed – up to 20% – while some other proportion ends up as animal feed. Overall, as much as 40% of global arable land is used to feed livestock (Mottet et al 2018). This is an important point.
At 1:38. Here the speaker argues that in a vegan world, there would be more crops grown than is the case now. Assuming he means by this a world with zero animal agriculture and all food derived from plants, this is likely to be untrue. What research there is suggests that less arable land would be required (as mentioned above, up to 30% less – see Peters et al (2016) “Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios” – Figure 2).
At 3:30. Both speakers claim Our World in Data is a flawed source and somehow driven by evil interests. However, Our World In Data is generally regarded as a reputable source so we should feel confident their data is reasonably fair and accurate.
At 5:00. The speaker claims that the OWID graph showing that 77-80% of agricultural land is used for animal farming is misleading. No, it isn’t – this is correct. So it absolutely is true that IF we eliminated animal farming, we would free up for other uses as much as 70% of land currently used for agriculture. Note that the FAO observed in Mottet et al (2018) that some proportion of existing grazing land could be converted to crops (as much as 14% of global agricultural land).
At 8:00. Pretending that anyone says that rocky cliffs can be used for crops is mischievous. What people are saying, the FAO included, is that some land currently used for grazing could be used for cropping, and that’s true. Just because there is land that can’t be used to grow crops doesn’t mean we have to graze animals on it.
At 9:20. The claim that ruminant grazing for meat is a benefit is somewhat irrelevant to the main argument. While “regenerative grazing” might be a good strategy for restoring degraded grasslands, this could be achieved in other ways. The example given of bison in Romania is a case in point.
At 14:00. The chart from the paper “Crop harvests for direct food use insufficient to meet the UN’s food security goal” makes my point clearly, however Garland and his guest seem to misunderstand what they are looking at. As they themselves observe, the land area for feed is half that of the land area for food. In other words, as much as one-third of all arable land dedicated to food and feed is used for feed. This goes to the point I made earlier about respective cropland footprints.
At 15:30. Calories/protein are useful measures for working out the area of land needed to supply food. In particular, we can observe that a hectare of cropland can deliver substantial amounts of human edible protein. This is useful if we want to work out how much land is needed to replace animals with crops.
At 18:30. The FAO graph where we see that soy meal is just 5% of livestock feed intake is being used carelessly. The proportion of feed intake would be significantly greater – and more salient – if we were evaluating only arable land use for feed (which is the metric in which we are interested).
At 19:15 to 21:00. What’s being avoided here is that a significant proportion of soy is used to feed livestock, with about 93% of the soy harvest supplying the feed market. While oil is a co-product of crushing soy, it is likely not the main driver of soy production as a proportion of global oilcrop.
At 21:20. Here the speaker claims that soy oil consistently fetches a higher price than meal, so for comparable units of production, the oil is the better value proposition. However, if we go by commodity prices as suggested in the video, soy meal is the greater earner per hectare of harvest (80% by weight is meal and just 20% by weight is oil).
That means that for 100kg of soy, just 20kg will be oil and 80kg will be the meal. I’m not sure what current prices are, but let’s say they are somewhere around $0.45USD per kg for meal and $1.10USD per kg for oil. So, for my 100kg of soy crush, I would get back $36 for the meal and $22 for the oil.
I checked with an ag consultant about this a while back:
“My understanding is that the money is largely in the meal, but it is worth crushing to remove the oil. The meal is a protein source for feedlots; cows, pigs and chickens. The oil finds its way into many uses (food chain, industrial etc) but it is essentially a byproduct. That is what makes it hard for canola farmers because although canola oil is a superior and preferred oil in food manufacture it’s base price is determined by the soy oil price and soy oil production fluctuates with the need for soy meal. Canola is the reverse of soy in that oil is the valuable component, and a greater % (around 40 c.f. 20% for soybeans) and the meal is essentially a byproduct.”
It is most likely that the feed market drives soy’s presence in the oilseed market.
At 22:15. Absolute conspiracy theory nuttery. A truly vegan world would NOT be a benefit to the soy industry which depends on the inexorable growth of CAFO production for its own expansion. For example, the protein from all the meat and dairy produced in the US right now could be replaced by current levels of domestic soy consumption; instead it’s largely wasted being fed to CAFO raised animals (which is why the FAO find that we feed such animals about 2-3 times more human edible protein as we get back). A vegan world would not generate more soy.
At 1:20 The pie charts from the paper “Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture” is NOT saying that a vegan food system requires three times more land for grains etc in total. It’s saying that for human FOOD, those are the relative proportions of sources. The graph does not include crops currently grown for industrial use, export use or animal feed, so it says nothing at all about the total arable land area needed in the current BAU. In fact, it quite clearly says that grains and soy that are currently used for feed are redirected to food: “human-edible feeds that were previously used by livestock are routed for human consumption”.
At 4:42. The speaker refers to the paper “Plant-based diets add to the wastewater phosphorus burden” and suggests that a vegan diet would lead to an increased production of fertiliser and hence there must be an increase in cropland. This is a complete misrepresentation of the paper which notes that:
“Livestock density is a major driver of this P inefficiency and pollution due to the extra land and fertiliser P required to produce animal feed and the difficulties of recycling livestock excreta evenly back to croplands (Leip et al 2015, Withers et al 2020). Increasing global demand for animal food products has increased the demand for mined P by 28% since 1961, and 90% of the environmental P footprint for an individual UK resident is due to animal product consumption (Metson et al 2012). As such, transitioning towards a plant-based diet seems beneficial for P sustainability by reducing global P fertilizer demand and lowering eutrophication rates by reducing individual P footprints (Macdonald et al 2012, Metson et al 2012, Thaler et al 2015).”
and
“Although reducing animal products in diets is an effective way for UK consumers to reduce their P, and other environmental footprints (e.g. Leach et al 2016, González-García et al 2018, Vanham et al 2018), these footprints are not the only metric that must be taken into account when planning for a more sustainable food system.”
At 5:30. The graph from the paper, “Essential Amino Acids: Master Regulators of Nutrition and Environmental Footprint” is also being used mischievously. In fact, the graph tells us that the land needed to produce any of the main food types is largest for beef and pork, while the smallest area is needed for most vegetable foods and especially for soybeans.
At 12:50. Making up stories about governments/vegans forcing people to be vegan is a nonsense. While some fanatics might indeed advocate for this, at the end of the day any progress towards a “vegan” world would depend entirely on the willingness of the people to be moved in that direction. No government wanting to remain in power would risk losing the support of the vast majority by enforcing dietary limitations. This is just more nutty conspiracy theorising.
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 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.
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 (because animals killed to grow the crops we all eat is a shared cost). 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. On average then, a vegan-friendly diet is the least harm option.
First, a little background. Veganism is not just 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 so as to defend our food.
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 find that many animals are 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 as well as 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 animals per year, but it could be much higher (perhaps 200). This is because fish and other sea food (eg prawns) 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. Certainly, the numbers of such animals killed might be considerable. However, I think we don’t need to know this for sure because both kinds of diet demand the use of croplands. The question really is, do we use more cropland for a vegan-friendly diet or for a typical diet?
Well, luckily there has been research into this question. On average, the cropland footprint in the US for a plant-based diet is about 0.17 hectares per year (see, for example, Peters et al, 2016 – Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios), while that of a typical Western-style diet is around 0.34 hectares per year. Whatever the number of animals killed on croplands, the plant-based diet will cause fewer overall.
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 a rights-based stance that doesn’t necessarily fly but for many people, least harm as a principle carries weight.
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 strange new moral philosophy, but rather the idea that we extend moral consideration to other species. More exactly, we think of veganism as including other animals within the scope of our moral concern for fairness and justice. In effect, that means 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 high welfare, free-range farms may not be truly free or able to exercise bodily autonomy, they may be relatively free to live natural lives and 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.
My explanation of just what ethical veganism really is.
Summary:
Veganism is an ethical position, the idea that we extend moral concern to other (sentient) species. We are already vegan to other people, all that is in question is how much we can be vegan to other species.
Over thousands of years humans have developed moral principles about how to live well together. Some of these principles have been described as human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out a generally agreed set of such rights that can and should apply to all people in any society.
The basic, or foundational subset of these are the three rights described at Articles 3-5 of this Declaration. These are the rights to one’s own life, the right to be free and not treated as property or exclusively as a means to an end, and the right not to be treated cruelly.
There are reasons to believe that these basic rights can be extended to many other species. Simply put, we should want other species to be free and in charge of their own lives without being treated badly by us, as much as is possible.
While human rights are often protected at law, animal rights are not. Vegans therefore are people who behave as though these rights for other species are protected. This makes it very easy to work out what to do whenever we can, even if it turns out that the best that we can do can never eliminate the use of other animals for human ends.
The Full Story
Humans have long been engaged in an ethical project (cf Philip Kitcher). Today it is accepted that people deserve certain moral considerations such as to be free to conduct their own lives, to not be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to not be held in slavery, and to have their interests protected at law. People also deserve to be treated justly. Justice is understood to mean fair treatment and for the victims of unfair treatment to be protected (and perhaps for the perpetrators of unfair treatment to receive punishment).
These ethical principles have been embedded in what are known as human rights. In particular the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out in 30 articles the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Generally speaking rights and just treatment are confined to our species.
Ethical Veganism is the idea that the principles expressed by three of these fundamental rights – Articles 3-5 of the Declaration – should be extended to other species whenever possible. Vegans believe that we owe a moral obligation to other species to respect their rights to their own lives, not be enslaved and not be subjected to cruel treatment or torture, whenever we can.
This makes it very easy to evaluate what choices and behaviours we should enact in regard to other species. It also offers a clear distinction about those who endorse veganism and those who advocate for animal rights.
Human rights are protected in law – legislation in many different countries seeks to constrain people to observing these rights. Animal rights however are not well protected in law. Because this is the case, people who endorse veganism behave as though those rights are protected, while animal rights advocates also agitate to have those rights protected in law.
While people who endorse veganism choose to act as though animals’ rights are protected, their behaviours will depend to some extent on circumstances. This means that in some cases, animals may still be used and harmed for human needs.
For example, someone living where access to food is limited might own animals from whom food and fibre is collected or obtained. People living in traditional communities with limited access to modern goods and services might continue to hunt other animals for food and fibre. Animals might be used in the pursuit of medical treatments where the outcome can be shown to benefit many.
Generally speaking however, when one lives where circumstances permit then one should make choices that aim to respect and protect the rights of other species. In other words, it is up to the individual how best to act so as to protect other species. For example, they may choose to eat a plant-based diet.
People sometimes argue that farming animals as well as growing crops for food might be preferable to growing only crops. For example, they describe regenerative farming as the most ethical option. It seems to me that this argument is open to debate on empirical grounds, given there is some dispute about the overall efficacy of regenerative agriculture. I cannot adjudicate on that. However, as a broad stance based on my explanation above and within the context of the idea that other species deserve basic rights, it should be clear that animal farming is not ethical.
Our ethical concern in regard to animal farming emerges from its failure to observe the three principles above. We might be able to make farming relatively cruelty free, but we cannot make the animals free or unexploited nor prevent their ultimate harm. Therefore, while minimising pain and suffering in animal farming is consistent with our duty to prevent cruelty, animal welfare in the context of human use of other species falls short of our overall ethical obligation.
Because animal farming fails to fully respect the rights of other species as explained above, people who endorse veganism as an ethical stance will more than likely choose not to buy products derived from animal farming and will prefer to buy and use goods that have been produced without the use and exploitation of other animals, whenever they can. Of course, in the broader sense it might turn out that it simply is not possible to prevent the use of animals completely, if at all, because that is just the way things are. We may simply have to face the fact that whatever ethical failure accrues from this, it is the best we can do in the circumstances.
Just Us Too 