Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

The definition of ‘veganism’ from The Vegan Society U.K. is as follows -

“The word “veganism” denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — 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 humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

In this exclusion of that which is unnecessary and causes suffering to animals, I think an analogy can be drawn to Occam’s razor which is ‘A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Occam’s razor is named after the deviser of the rule, English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham – From Free OnlineDictionary

“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349). Like many Franciscans, William was a minimalist in this life” – From The Skeptic’sDictionary

Although Occam’s razor is a heuristic principle useful as a rule of thumb in science and philosophy, I would suggest the basic principle of parsimony can be used as a tool for cutting out our unnecessary use of animals for food, clothing, and entertainment. Occam’s Razor is used as a tool for succinctness in philosophy where competing models may be judged and if there are any superfluous variables they are discarded as unnecessary to the working of the theory.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” – Albert Einstein (attributed/paraphrased)

In this phrase, Einstein is explaining how we can use the principle to cut away what is unnecessary but not go too far with ‘greedy reductionism’ as philosopher Daniel Dennett called it. Isaac Newton too said “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”

I think if an analogy is made between veganism and Occam’s razor, it has great explanatory power for what veganism is. If we were to look for the simplest and most efficient system with the best outcome for the environment and ecological efficiency, it is veganism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency… – Ecological Efficiency – from Wikipedia
”In comparing the cultivation of animals versus plants, there is a clear difference in magnitude of energy efficiency. Edible kilocalories produced from kilocalories of energy required for cultivation are: 18.1% for chicken, 6.7% for grass-fed beef, 5.7% for farmed salmon, and 0.9% for shrimp. In contrast, potatoes yield 123%, corn produce 250%, and soy results in 415% of input calories converted to calories able to be utilized by humans. This disparity in efficiency reflects the reduction in production from moving up trophic levels. Thus, it is more energetically efficient to form a diet from lower trophic levels.” 1 On the principle of parsimony alone, veganism is favoured as it is more ecologically efficient. 2 The main concern of veganism is animal use and exploitation and it is by cutting out this unnecessary use that we hope animals are spared lives of suffering as new people adopt the lifestyle. 3

I would suggest that most people have an ethical objection to some form of animal exploitation for some rational reason. Many people object to one or more of the following types of animal abuse: fox hunting, bear bile farming, bullfighting, trophy hunting, or dog fighting. Many also oppose ivory poaching, keeping orcas captive for entertainment purposes, or wearing fur. The reason for this ethical objection could be stated as people’s recognition that such practices are unnecessary and cruel and we have an innate intuition that tells us it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal. We can see that causing cruelty and suffering to animals for no reason is immoral.

I often pose the following question:

“You have a choice between two cosmetic products A and B. A is tested on animals and causes animal cruelty. Product B is not tested on animals. Both products are the same except for the animal testing i.e. the animal testing is the only variable, there is no difference in price or quality. Which product will you choose?”
Everyone I have ever asked this has answered that they would use product B because the animal suffering is clearly gratuitous and unnecessary. However this logic can be extended to other areas also. We have alternatives to animal products that are just as good and in many cases superior to the animal-derived products. The difference is the level of animal suffering involved between the products.

I call this type of logic the ‘necessity argument’. General arguments of this nature are as follows:
1. The imposition of suffering on any sentient being requires an adequate moral justification and pleasure, amusement, or convenience cannot suffice as adequate to justify imposing suffering on any sentient being
2. The most “humane” animal agriculture involves considerable suffering imposed on sentient beings
3. As a general matter, our best (and only) justification for eating animal products is pleasure,amusement, or convenience
4. Therefore: We cannot morally justify eating animal products

Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?
Gary L. Francione

A version I use is a syllogistic form:

  1. Consuming animal products is unnecessary
  2. Animals are caused suffering in producing animal products and in being slaughtered
  3. We normally consider causing unnecessary suffering to animals morally wrong and consuming animal products causes animal suffering.

If I can eliminate the unnecessary use of animals in other areas, I think this is the logical progression of veganism. Many objections to veganism point out the impossibility of being 100% vegan but I think this misses the spirit of veganism. To use imperfection as an excuse is to move the other way along the line of causing least harm and shows a lack of commitment to the original
principle. Compared to Occam’s razor, it is akin to saying because we cannot explain a certain phenomenon 100% accurately, therefore it must be magic. To be more closely aligned to a principle of least harm one would have to be as closely aligned to the vegan philosophy as possible, not using animal products where possible. We can not have 100% efficiency in an energy system but it does not mean we should waste energy. We instead look at the model that is most energy efficient and try to adhere to it. People’s objections generally lie in the area of’ necessity’ and arguments about where to draw the line at sentience, however, I think arguments such as these move in the opposite direction to the progressive nature of eliminating more and more animal usage that veganism seeks to do. 99.9% of animal use is for completely unnecessary purposes at present and we can easily eliminate our participation by not consuming animal products or entertainment. We are true to a parsimonious principle and seek to move in a direction that does not cause the unnecessary suffering of animals. If you disagree with animals suffering unnecessarily for entertainment or fashion, then your motives can be extended to your diet and use of cosmetic products.

Anti-vegan arguments often take the form of attacking the premises of the ‘necessity argument’ and fall under one of the following categories in my experience: the premise of ‘necessity’ is challenged –the arguer claims animal products are necessary for some reason. The challenger creates survival scenarios or desert islands and asks the vegan if he or she would eat meat in order to survive. Ethics cannot be extrapolated from a situation of emergency into a situation where no necessity for such a choice exists. Additionally, people may argue animal products are needed for human health but this is not the case. 4 The suffering of animals will also be denied as part of the argument. Attempts at rationalising or minimising this suffering are made with appeals to ‘humane slaughter’ etc. This is akin to the worst sorts of science denialism. 5 Finally, if the former attempts fail, the person arguing may use a tu quoque argument and say that vegans cause harm to the environment by their very existence. Nevertheless, taking into account the regrettable deaths in harvest (which can hopefully be reduced with better methods), veganism still causes fewer deaths. 6

Non-veganism also adds exploitation, confinement,and more suffering over a longer time for the animals as well as more deaths due to more land being harvested to feed animals consumed by humans. The tu quoque argument is an attempt to create a moral equivalency between veganism and non-veganism saying the difference is arbitrary and of no consequence. When we look at what forms of animal suffering veganism boycotts and the lesser impact it has on health and the environment and its ecological efficiency, then taken holistically it is clearly a better option. Arguments against veganism have to show why they draw an arbitrary line at some forms of exploitation and suffering but not others. If we are not to use sentience, which is more inclusive of all animals and is a morally relevant criterion, what criteria are non-vegans using to ‘draw the line’ at certain forms of animal cruelty but not others? If people object to one form of animal abuse, there is no reason not to object to as many forms of abuse as possible. We aim to cut out avoidable and intentional animal suffering and reduce unavoidable and unintentional animal suffering. If it is argued that some animals die anyway through harvest, this does not mean there isa moral equivalence and we can then cause intentional and avoidable suffering and death to animals. The logic of these anti-vegan arguments is illustrated by changing the victims from animals to humans. If those same arguments can be used against human rights, then it leads to moral despair. Saying human rights workers were hypocrites because they use computers built by slave-wage workers would not be acceptable. Once again, if you disagree with animals suffering unnecessarily for entertainment or fashion, then your motive for this can be extended to your diet and use of cosmetic products and as many other areas as possible.

Both Occam’s razor and veganism are philosophies seeking to cut out that which is unnecessary and in the case of veganism it is eliminating animal products that are unnecessary as far as is avoidable despite their current ubiquity in society. Following Occam’s razor, if “plurality should not be posited without necessity” I do not see why our involvement in animal exploitation and suffering should be increased if it is avoidable and should be decreased where unnecessary as it causes animal suffering. If we think animals matter morally and we disagree with various forms of their exploitation and suffering at the hands of humans then we should remove our participation in those practices. ”If it isn’t necessary,” Dr. John Pippin says, referring to the necessary evil argument, “all that’s left is evil.” 7

With sincere thanks to Rudy, Andrea, Rick, Marcus, Kimberly and Rodney for editing suggestions and to Vanessa Earthchild for original suggestion of ‘Product A or B’ question.

http://vegankit.com/

Views: 120

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!

Join Animal Rights Zone

About

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes

or

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:

Twitter

Google+

Pinterest

A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.arzone.ning.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.arzone.ning.com.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.

Members

Events

Badge

Loading…

© 2024   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Google+