Veganism Is Inevitable
Speciesism is a word which has only recently entered mainstream ethical discussions. Speciesism is the philosophical belief that humans are inherently superior to non-human animals. Whilst speciesism is fundamentally flawed, as neither human nor non-human animals inherit any essential moral value, speciesism itself is not necessary harmful. This is because the most important moral factor behind a belief is whether or not the belief leads to positive or negative utility through the actions it inspires. Even though incorrect, the belief that humans are superior to other animals needn’t lead to their exploitation and harm - yet this is far too often the case.
Speciesism, like all forms of unjust discrimination, forms across different variables depending on the cultural setting it is acting within. This does not mean that the meta-ethical foundations of actions differ across cultures; only that the ways the universal, meta-ethical strive for utility manifests itself can vary across culture. This is not to say that all actions across cultures are always done with selfless utilitarian interests at heart. Reality will point to psychological egoism as the true motivator for all actions. A commonality across cultures is that speciesism is displayed most vividly within the agriculture and other resource intensive industries.
A pig. A smart, social and beautiful animal which feels pain and suffering. I will spare you from the more graphic images in this blog post.
In some cultures, eating bats, cats and dogs is socially acceptable. In some cultures, hunting endangered animals for pseudo-scientific medicines is socially acceptable. In some cultures, electrocuting mink to be skinned alive for fur coats is socially acceptable. In some cultures, ripping out piglets’ testicles and then gassing them at a few weeks old for bacon is socially acceptable. In some cultures, people avoid plastic straws to save marine life but support fisheries which kill billions of animals a year, use trawler nets which pillage entire ocean floors and eco-systems, catch thousands of animals in huge nets which catch all aquatic animals indiscriminately, raising ocean life up to the surface leading to eyeballs popping out of heads due to extreme changes in pressure, boiling animals to death and eating their flesh out of desire but no need is socially acceptable. In some cultures, raping cows so that they produce milk, taking away their calves so that they do not drink the milk, killing the males who are not profitable enough to be reared long-term so that they can be sold as veal, and repeating the cruel cycle upon female calves until their bodies cannot produce enough milk so they are hung upside-down and have their throats slit is socially acceptable. In some cultures, breeding chickens to be multiple times above their natural weights literally breaking their bones under their own bodies, debeaking chicks’ sensitive beaks so that they do not peck each other to death whilst crammed into boxes where they cannot spread their wings, standing in their own excrement, ‘sexing’ chicks at birth where males are tossed into industrial blenders or gas chambers because they cannot produce eggs.
Perhaps individuals have distanced themselves so far from their actions, hiding behind the excuse of cultural norms, in order to avoid questioning their actions and to maintain their sanity.
The eradication of philosophical speciesism is a natural extension from the eradication of other social ills such as racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. The practical eradication of speciesism is a natural extension of social movements to extend the right to be free, work, vote, own property, marry, adopt and exist. Both the theoretical and practical eradication of speciesism can be found in veganism. Veganism is movement which has, in recent history, been associated with dietary fads when in reality veganism is the philosophical belief, and resultant actions, that non-human animals should be given equal moral consideration as humans. This does not mean that non-human animals should be given the same rights as humans but instead should be given moral consideration according to the principle(s) to which the individual’s preference for normative ethic prescribes. This is similar to the way in which children are treated today. A fair and objective review of a two year old would likely show that although there is no basic to grant to the right to vote or even significant autonomy, the child deserves a base level of utility and life free from unnecessary harm.
Whilst the practical eradication of the aforementioned prejudices resulted in huge, positive social changes, it can be argued that the changes were not spurred on by any fundamental changes to any normative ethical theory or theories. Instead, most social justice movements have won due to incremental changes in whom normative ethical theories are applied to. In other words, singular, groundbreaking philosophies often lead to exclusive forms of expansion of rights whereas the countless social justice movements which follow from this build upon incremental extensions of these rights.
For example, Ancient Greek democracy began as a revolutionary idea about the rights of citizens to have a direct say in public policy. However, only free adult men who were Athenian citizens (or about 10% of the population) were allowed to participate in Athens’ limited democracy. Even when enlightenment-era representative democracy sprung up in as Europe and the New World women, slaves, ethnic minorities and those who didn’t own land were often excluded from the democratic process. Over hundreds (or, arguable thousands) of years, the practicalities of how democracy is conducted within a society and by whom has changed. Democracy, like others rights such as freedom from slavery, marriage and adoption was first given to a certain, privileged group and later extended to larger bodies of the population more equitably. In all societies, there are some groups of people still fighting for basic rights which have been extended to others. For example, according to the Economist’s Democracy Index, less than 46% of the world’s population live in democracies and less than 7% live in full democracies.
Once a category of rights exists for those within a privileged position and once a marginalised group has had other, ‘lesser’ rights extended to it, the foundations to extend rights which are currently exclusive becomes easier. This is because these two factors necessitate the acknowledgements that certain rights are beneficial (even if presently exclusive) and that the marginalised group is worthy of, at least, a minimum level of moral consideration. These acknowledgements break down the mental barriers needed to later extend these rights to marginalised groups.
The practical application of enlightenment ideas of rights has been through an extension of utilitarian principles. Although the suggestion that the next large extension of rights must be to those from other species, moral consideration has already been extended to certain non-human animals depending on culture. In much of the West, companion animals such as dogs and cats are often protected by animal cruelty legislation whereas farm animals are brutally exploited and killed for their bodies. The killing of cows would be viewed in a very negative lights In India where cows are considered sacred and therefore killing cows is strictly prohibited in many states. Similarly, the killing and consumption of animals such as cats and dogs is completely acceptable in certain cultures.
This clearly indicates that all cultures have the ability to extend moral consideration to non-human animals. Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri’s Great Ape Project aims to take this one step further by advocating the United Nations to adopt a Declaration of the rights of Great Apes, thereby taking the the codifying of rights further towards non-human animals. This reflects the need to move away from culturally dependant variables towards something rooted in reason. The only consistently applied variable when deciding who receives moral consideration is the ability to feel pain.
The acceptance of this controversial view may take time but is inevitable. As will all social movements, there is a long period of building a paradigm during which a small group of individuals motivated by philosophical motives come together. These individuals can be called the fundamentalists. In this case, fundamentalist should not necessarily be considered a dirty word, but instead a word referring to the adopting veganism due to fundamental ethical beliefs. for After this, the fundamentalists will manage convince those in the general population who are not especially philosophically inclined and to whom the social changes have the least direct impact upon. These individuals can be called the early adopters. These early adopters are often superficial in their approach but manage to build a strong niche within a visible ‘hipster; community. Finally, a tipping point is reached when enough individuals accept the social changes and it becomes more beneficial for all to adopt the new view. Most people will fit into this final group - the late adopters. After all, most individuals do not care about ethics in any meaningful way but are driven by culture, society, habit and convenience. By building convenient social infrastructure and through demonising non-vegan consumption patterns, society will move away from animal exploitation.
Veganism is in between the first and second stages. The fundamentalists have created a philosophical doctrine behind veganism which has long been established for centuries, but was truly indexed through Peter Singer’s work. A significant group of fundamentalist and early adopter activists and have emerged. Activists have managed to convince primarily young, centre and left-leaning individuals in the West to adopt veganism with little change to their lives but have failed to significantly penetrate other demographic groups.
A woman holding a sign at a protest which says “animal liberation”. She is likely part of the fundamental activist camp
The tipping point is soon. As more and more explicitly vegan products are advertised (they are already available in almost everywhere) and as the number of non-vegan products diminished, veganism becomes something which individuals opt-out of rather than opt-in to. The social pressure on those opting-out will increase and veganism will become a norm. The codification of animal rights will follow and even though veganism will continue to gain gain popularity in large part due to to convenience, once accepted, individuals will reaffirm the philosophical underpinning against other groups which resist veganism.
One day speciesist consumption will be eliminated in both social acceptability and the law. It may take decades, trillions of animals might die in the meantime and many arguments will be had - but in the end it will all be worth it. Each vegan meal of the future is an animal spared from the cruelties of our cruel system.
