Thoughts of an Eaten Sun

Just a word of warning: Kyle and I are friends in real life, so I have no problem taking on his ideas head on. I’m not trying to unfairly attack him and if I happened to do so, I’m sure he would make me aware of it.

I don’t want to speak for all vegans, but I don’t whole-heartedly agree with your schools of vegan thought.

Veggies (my term for all non meat eaters), in general, like the idea of voting with our dollars. Every time we shop or eat we are voting for non-animal products.

Freegans – Most freegans would fit into category 1. Freegans are typically vegans, unless the non-vegan food is waste (probably from dumpster diving). Some freegans are anti-capitalist, so they do not want to support the capitalist machine that creates a bunch of waste and other problems. By consuming society’s throw aways, they are able to reduce the amount of waste and avoid putting money into the system. So, why will freegans eat non-vegan food if it is dumpstered? The companies will never know that someone consumed it and they will never receive money for it. Once it’s in the trash, it’s out of the system. Since there is no money involved, there is no vote. These feelings vary from freegan to freegan. I have met freegans that will eat dairy or egg products from the dumpster, but not flesh.

I need to make an important distinction between animal rights and animal suffering. Believers in animal rights think that animals deserve to be autonomous beings and should not be killed by humans. Some people are veggies because of animal suffering (and most of us will admit that animal suffering was what caught our eye at first, even if we are now in the animal rights camp).

So, as a believer in animal rights, I believe that an animal’s muscle, milk, skin, anything they make for themselves (yes, including honey) and so on are not commodities for humans to trade and consume.

Someone against animal suffering may be okay with the killing or use of animal as long as it is treated well during its life.

So, even amongst veggies that are veggies for animal reason, there are a variety of opinions. Don’t want to speak for all vegans, but most that I have talked with are believers in animal rights.

Your 4th vegan assumption informs your 2nd one, in my opinion. I’m not sure I agree with it, though. If you mean that animals can understand morals, then no. If you mean that they deserve to be approached in a moral way by humans, then yes.

Animals are punished for their deeds, in a way. The hypothetical bull would probably be put down after attacking a human. We kill violent animals to protect humans.

Animals cannot understand the morality of their choices and should therefore not be punished for the killing of other animals. This, however, does not mean that we can disregard our morality when dealing with them. Our ability to make these distinctions is something that separates us from other animals and it is important to embrace when dealing with our lesser developed cousins.

Nice Orson Scott Card reference, didn’t even need the link :D

I’m not convinced about the relevance of your discussion about pain vs. suffering. (Using your definitions) Are you implying that if an animal can feel pain, but cannot suffer that is morally justifiable to inflict pain upon it?

The argument that I am familiar with here is that humans suffer extra because if we break a leg we can think of all of the things that we won’t be able to enjoy, but some animals may not be able to do so. I think there is pretty compelling evidence to support that animals suffer according to your definition of suffering. The things I have read are from books, so I’ll try to find an online resource to link here later.

If we need to decide if animals are like humans or robots, I would err on the side of caution and consider them human like until the answer is in. The risks of a false positive are that you didn’t enjoy meat. A false negative would mean that you have been wronging animals all along.

I don’t think it’s necessary to consider the morality of carnivores and their food if they are not moral agents. You can’t fault an animal for its nature if it lacks the ability to internalize the moral quandaries. I think the more intriguing question is: what would happen if humans were carnivorous? I can’t imagine that we would be discussing the ethics of killing animals. We could probably still fight about animal suffering, but probably not animal rights.

I find this sentence funny: “Is it immoral for a vegan to feed another animal to his pet?”. This seems to imply that there are a different set of morals for vegans and omnivores.

Whether or not pets are morally justifiable is something that I plan on discussing on my blog some time soon. (Sneak peak: only if they’re rescued)

I’m planning to write a discussion about what veganism means to me pretty soon, so look for that. Hopefully it will clear up some of the confusion. Kyle is my friend and has some misinterpretations about veganism (I’m assuming that I am your prototype. Do you know other vegans?), so I need to state my reasons clearly.

[Pretty sure my response is longer than the post]

First, let me say that I am trying to think of a blog name so that I may start one. My initial idea was ‘I, Human’ but that was already taken. Back to the drawing board.

Anyway, on to the crux of this comment.

I know you said you are guessing when you say that all animals are moral agents, but I really don’t think that is the case. Sure, more advanced animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins might fall into the realm of moral agents, but it’s really hard to determine either way. For all we know, what seems to be conscious decision making could just be programmed through evolution. Recent research has shown that chimpanzees (possibly other animals as well) can formulate future plans. This seems to give some credence to the thought that animals do in fact make decisions and can therefore be held accountable for their actions. However, to counter this claim, we could say that the animals don’t really realize the impact of their actions. The research I am alluding to tells of chimpanzees collecting rocks which they will throw at zoo patrons. Now, the chimpanzees could just see this as a way to get people to go away and not realize that there is the possibility of causing pain and suffering. Perhaps if we threw rocks at the chimpanzees (not that I’m advising we do so) they could learn the potential consequences of their actions and be less inclined to throw rocks. Regardless, I don’t think we can say that all animals are moral agents. Some animals are just hardwired by nature to do certain things. Like you, I do think it is wrong if a bull is put to death for goring a human. The bull is not morally liable and was probably acting out of a will to survive.

In regard to carnivores, I think you are right when mentioning the fact that certain animals are by nature carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores. I wonder, however, if we humans were originally omnivores or if we just experimented with it one day (perhaps after we could control fire and cook up a steak) and found it to be appealing. Therefore, at least in the case of humans, omnivorous diets could be a habit of pleasure so to speak.

I’ll argue that animals (at least some advanced animals) are in fact sentient. They have wants and desires just as humans do. These wants and desires are subjective. These wants and desires could be mistaken for necessary things, such as the necessity of food. However, just as I could go to the grocery store and look for something for dinner, I have choices from which to make a selection. (This choice is different from choosing meat or no meat.) So, if I were looking at Doritos, I could pick cooler ranch or nacho cheesier. This would be a subjective choice based on personal preference. In the same regard, if a cat were given the choice between some dry vegan food and a piece of Tofurkey, the cat would choose the one that suits its personal preference. In addition, if an animal (say, dog or cat) were shut in the basement, they would surely let someone know through some sort of vocal signal. This would be the animal’s preference of not being alone. Of course, you could say that these animals are social animals and are programmed against being alone. However, we could say the same things of humans. If we accept this as ‘good enough’ evidence to say that at least some animals are sentient we can now move on to discussing whether animals suffer.

I may be wrong, but to me it seems that pain might be something sudden such as touching a hot stove. However, suffering is a prolonged experience of negative stimulus. Feel free to disagree with this, but I’m going off of this for the following argument that animals can suffer. To use an example which I am familiar with, I will reference Data. Usually he is quite crazy and bounding about and causing quite a ruckus. However, with his UTI, he has become a bit sluggish and not very responsive to the things which usually get him going. We could construe this behavior as a way to minimize the pain that he might cause himself from moving too much. To help this analogy along, I’ll have to switch a bit to an animal which usually lets its suffering be known; this animal will be a dog. Let us compare the suffering of humans to the suffering of animals. If a human were to break its leg, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the human would suffer some mental anguish over the broken leg. The human would probably be scared, crying, and wishing for someone to help them. In the same way, dogs whimper and whine (perhaps cry) and are generally scared when physically afflicted. This suffering is a subjective experience. Dogs know pain personally. Just as humans would sympathize with the suffering of other humans, dogs and perhaps other animals, can sympathize with the suffering of their own species or even of others. So needless to say, I believe that animals do experience and can relate to the experience of suffering in other animals. Moving on.

The dilemma of a moral agent, in this case a vegan, feeding an amoral agent (at least in regard to food choice), a cat, supplying a vegan diet to a cat which is harmful to the cat is immoral. Promoting the suffering of another being, I think, is an immoral action. Although, we could get into the argument of the suffering of one minimizing or eliminating the suffering of many, but I don’t want to right now. Anyway, if this diet doesn’t negatively affect the cat, then it is not immoral. Also, the lack of knowledge pertaining to the causing of suffering is not immoral. However, continuing the diet would be immoral, since in this case, it would cause the animal to suffer and maybe even die. Now, we have to factor into this scenario the morals or ethics of vegan. In this case, using food which comes from animals would go against the ethics of the individual, the vegan. As stated in John’s post, most meat in animal food comes from the wasted products of animals killed for human consumption. Since it is just left-overs, it is somehow justifiable to allow the animal to eat these products. However, this is a very weak argument. With this reasoning, vegans and vegetarians would be justified in eating anything with gelatin in it since bones are just what is left over after the meat has been harvested. Also, vegans and vegetarians would also be justified in eating these left-over parts as well.

The vegan purchasing the cat food which contains meat (or by-products, or waste) is ultimately creating demand for the purchased food. So, though the vegan is not creating demand through his choices of food, he is nonetheless creating demand through the food his cat eats. This gives rise to the question of just how important your ethics or morals are to you. The cat, if given away, would most likely be fed food which contained meat, but this does not justify the vegan’s choosing to keep the cat. If he buys food for his cat which promotes the meat industry, he might as well eat meat too. Either way, he is creating demand. Beyond creating demand, however, is the compromising of ethics. We have to decide which is more important to us; does our personal pleasure supersede the pain we will cause an untold number of other animals? From a utilitarian perspective we should try to eliminate or minimize as much suffering from the world as possible. The meat a cat would eat is not a one for one relationship. In other words, more than one animal would have to suffer in order for the cat not to suffer. The greater moral choice in this regard would be to let the cat go. However, you might be able to get away with feeding the cat meat-based food. (The odds of the cat eating meat-based food in a new home are pretty high.)

Well, we can think about this some more. It’s late, I have papers to write (for school), and I’m a bit tired.

I’m looking forward to the continuation of this conversation.

I disagree with this statement, “If he buys food for his cat which promotes the meat industry, he might as well eat meat too. Either way, he is creating demand.” This makes demand seem like a boolean concept (on or off, 1 or 0). I create a certain amount of demand. If I abandoned my veganism, whether or not I am purchasing meat based foods for my cat, more demand would be created and more animals would be produced.

I’m also not sure about this, “The cat, if given away, would most likely be fed food which contained meat, but this does not justify the vegan’s choosing to keep the cat.” Unless the cat is put down, it seems that this does justify it. Giving away the cat would transfer the ethical dilemma to someone that probably doesn’t consider it to be one. This merely alleviates the burden from the vegan, without addressing the issue.

I recognize the correct solution according to utilitarianism, but this isn’t necessarily the best moral philosophy to use in this case. I have a second post about this issue in the works that should address some of these points.

An additional thought: Let’s take the case that for some reason a human becomes an obligate carnivore. (My mother is kind of in this situation. Due to her surgery to remove colon cancer, it is hard for her to digest beans, soy, mushrooms and a variety of other plants)

If I had an infant child that needed meat to survive, would I be better to give him or her away, as well? (If we’re using utilitarianism, we have to remove all speciesism. That infant deserves no different treatment than Data in this case)

I’m not trying to apply utilitarianism to a carnivore’s natural behaviors, that doesn’t even make sense. I am tryig to apply a moral philosophy to deal with me feeding a carnivore and that is an important distinction.

The nutrition that cats require from meat can be synthetically produced and if there is a food that offers that, that will be the choice that I make. So, I don’t believe that I have a moral obligation to feed my cat meat. I have an obligation to meet all of his needs. If this can be done with exclusively plant based food, I will do so. Your statement makes it sound like if a complete diet were possible through plants, I would still be required to feed meat to my cat. However, I would guess that it was made under the assumption that a cat must eat meat to survive. Data’s problems were not malnutrition, but from a buildup of crystals in his urine. The food that he is now on is specially formulated to fight those. I would guess that it is possible to formulate a similar plant based food, but there is little market for it.

Not enough time to read all of the comments; however… I would argue that your pain and suffering argument is neither applicable to the situation at hand, nor does it particularly solve anything. The question is, “is a being sentient” and “suffering” is something that cannot be measured nor does it necessarily mean something is sentient. A plant can suffer. If you pull a tree out of the sunlight, it dies slowly… yes? in the meantime it will grow toward whatever warmth and light it can feel, does this make it sentient? No. In the same way if you take a cat and make it so it can no longer sleep on its favorite chair, it will make efforts to get back to the chair and in a sense, “suffer.” I’d say that part of your argument is quite flawed.

Beyond that, I think the question of whether is is a moral agent doesn’t particularly apply to the idea of veganism. The idea of veganism is that it is a living being that can make a conscious choice to do something, even if it is strictly driven by instincts. You can punish a cat for doing something, and then it can make a conscious choice not to repeat the action because it leads to punishment. The cat doesn’t have morals, however it still made a choice. So, you are arguing against something that doesn’t really define the beliefs you are attempting to argue against.

The point that cat’s MUST eat meat is really the only thing here that really hit home without seeming to be a somewhat logical flaw. And that point alone is more than enough to convince me that the consumption of meat doesn’t have to be a choice, and as such does not carry any sort of moral wrong doing with in it even for those who do have the choice. If nature can build a system that requires it to happen; then those who have a choice aren’t fighting nature by doing it anyways.