In Defence of Veganism

I will make the argument that the issue of an ethical diet, while complex, can be looked at simply. When you look at the argument for veganism you will at least see that there is a strong case for not supporting industrialised animal farming.

Veganism defined by Answers.com
n.
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

There are many reasons why people become vegan and that they give for being one. These can be summarised as:

1. Concern for animal welfare.
2. Environmental impact of industrial animal farming.
3. Nutritional benefits.
4. Religion.

I will quickly explain why I won't be defending 2, 3 and 4.

2. While there is strong evidence that animal farming produces significant greenhouse gas emissions (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report) it can be convincingly argued that a combination of having a reduced-meat diet and an improvement in renewable energy technology may be a sufficient response to this and even a plant-based diet, if run off of fossil fuels, is not sustainable. (abstract of article suggesting this) Therefore, while further environmental protection is a benefit of going vegan, it is not an overall moral claim vegans can make solely for themselves. You can make the biggest personal environmental difference by going vegan, but with previous thoughts in mind, this isn't a hugely compelling argument to specifically go vegan.

3. There is strong evidence that a vegan diet can be a nutritional one. (American, Canadian and British[pdf] nutrition association statements). However, veganism, like all diets (meat or not) can be done in a wrong way and has further difficulties due to its restrictions. To argue that the vegan diet is nutritionally superior to diets involving animal produce is to only refer to nutritionally deficient meat diets. Unlike the environmental argument, there's no especial benefit to going vegan in this category, although, in my experience, going vegan discourages eating overly unhealthy foods like most snacks (which contain dairy) and the worst: huge meat meals. However, I don't know whether this is the general result of going vegan.

4. As an atheist, I don't feel any compulsion to act because of traditions or gods. This is a separate issue for religious people of course, but it won't be covered here.

So I will be defending veganism entirely from a concern for animal welfare. Here is where I think the argument typically rests on this matter:

Animals may be intelligent to varying amounts, but as long as housing and killing them is humane and relatively harmless our use of them is ethical even if we just use them for leisure (for taste, clothing etc).

While this statement is somewhat reasonable, it sounds like rationalisation. By financing the use of animals we'll never see by people we don't know we're taking a risk with animals' welfare. I wouldn't want to leave the care and perhaps humane putting-down of my pets to people I didn't know while I wasn't there. This isn't exactly analogous because the animal farming industry isn't a stranger which we don't or can't know anything about. Like our politicians, we trust important matters to people we don't know to sort out in far-away places, but we allow this because of a trustworthy context surrounding them. Any analogy I can make here will be muddied by differences, but suffice to say that the examples I've given have been examples of necessary matters: care of pets and politics. The animal industry is mostly unnecessary; existing mainly to allow people to enjoy animal products.

Because of this, the moral risk of mass utilisation of animals in developed countries where alternative nutrition is available is not adequately matched by a moral benefit. A vegan doesn't have to deny that pleasure can come from using animal products, and pleasure in itself can be a morally good outcome, but an analogy could be made with the slave trade which benefited participating countries but was clearly unethical. Any argument suggesting that the use of animals is justified by the pleasure produced by the usage really has to make the case that unequal pleasure would come about from existing without using them. Otherwise, their argument is simply that they are not motivated to look for alternatives to their lifestyle. This isn't a moral argument, although it has to be taken into account from a practical standpoint.

I specifically mention my opposition to industrial animal farming because I believe, like owning pets, local 'family-farms' are much more likely to look after their pets and put their welfare before efficiency or profit. Both animals and humans can benefit from having a relationship where inevitably the animal finds a use in the human's life. As long as that use puts the animal's welfare first or only subordinates it temporarily to the benefit of a necessary greater good (like animal testing for medicine or working dogs for police or the blind) then it can be moral.

While I set this essay out promising a simple argument, I admit that nothing can probably stop the debate being a relatively complex one as the animal industry has become woven into our lives. I welcome disagreement and discussion on this topic with me and will include any relevant points in an addendum.

Thanks for reading.