Veganism: Morality, Health, and the Environment- Professor Gary L. Francione

[Carolyn Bailey]

Veganism: Morality, Health, and the Environment

Dear Colleagues:

At least five times a week, I get some version of the following question:

In arguing for veganism, should we stay with just the moral argument and is it somehow “wrong” or “selling out” to rely on the arguments based on human health and the environment?

I am going to do a podcast on this in the near future but I wanted to make one point clear now: the lines between these arguments is not as bright as you might think in that health and environmental arguments
have moral dimensions. When I talk about animal rights, I emphasize the moral argument
based on a reinterpretation of the western philosophical tradition. I also discuss the spiritual component of Ahimsa
or nonviolence which, for me, has been an important part of my veganism for the past 28 years. The spiritual component is certainly not necessary to get to an abolitionist conclusion; I do not rely on it,
for instance, in the philosophical argument that I make in Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?. But my commitment to nonviolence is a significant part of my thinking.

I also talk about health and the environment as part of the moral/spiritual analysis.

We have a moral obligation that we owe to ourselves to be healthy; ingesting products that cause us harm is a form of violence we inflict on ourselves. The empirical evidence becomes stronger each day that
animal products are not only not needed for health; they actually cause
harm to our bodies in all sorts of ways. Even small amounts of animal
products can be harmful. Just as we have a moral obligation not to
smoke cigarettes (even a “few”), we have an obligation to make sure
that the things we put in and on our bodies (remember that what you put
on your skin gets into your body!) do not cause harm.
We owe this obligation not only to ourselves, but to the humans and
nonhumans who love us and who depend on us.

Similarly, although I do not believe that we can have moral obligations that we owe directly to nonsentient
beings, we certainly have an obligation to all of the sentient beings
that live in the nonsentient environment. Indeed, because there are so
many sentient beings who inhabit the environment, it is difficult to
see the environment as nonsentient in any way that would affect our
moral obligations. A tree may not be sentient in the sense of being
perceptually aware, but there are many sentient beings who live in or
on the tree or who depend on the tree. And all sentient beings—human
and nonhuman—depend on the environment for a healthy ecosystem.
Destruction of the environment raises many serious moral and spiritual
questions. An animal-based agriculture is destroying the environment
and all of the sentient beings therein.

A common objection to veganism is that if we all ate a plant-based diet, we would have to cultivate more land and that this would result
in our killing more sentient nonhumans. But that is not true. At
present, we feed most plant food to animals, who require pounds and
pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of flesh. If we ate the
plants directly, we would need fewer plants and we would not need to
destroy ecosystems so that we can have more grazing land.

So, in the end, although I maintain that the moral argument in favor of animal rights and the spiritual argument in favor of nonviolence are
the most important notions, we also have moral obligations to ourselves
(and to the humans and nonhumans who depend on us) to maintain and
improve our health and obligations to humans and nonhumans not to
destroy the environment.

As I said at the outset, I will do a podcast soon. But I have to finish the final work on my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which Columbia University Press will be publishing in May. So I may not
be doing as much blogging, but I should finish that up soon and be back
in full force.

So, if you are not vegan, go vegan. It really is easy. It is better for our health. It is better for the planet. But, most importantly,
it’s the morally right thing to do. We all say we reject violence.
Let’s take what we say seriously. Let’s take an important step to
reduce violence in the world starting with what we put in our mouths or
on our bodies.

And remember, it’s not an impossibility: THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

[Heather]

Kate, I agree. I do certainly think we should strive to be as healthy as possible (and I myself have a son) but I don't think it's a moral issue

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hi Heather. I agree that Professor Francione is very wise and has a great attitude. I agree that the spiritual component is certainly not necessary to get to an abolitionist conclusion.

There is a point in this article with which I disagree with him, but I find his opinion to be completely inoffensive. He says "We have a moral obligation that we owe to ourselves to be healthy."
I disagree. I think we have the right to abuse our health if that is what we choose to do, unless we have dependants, then we owe it to them to try to be as healthy as possible.
I recognise that we have a moral obligation to every other being on the planet to respect their health and wellbeing. I think it is only ourselves, if we have no dependants, that we are allowed to abuse.

[Heather]

"The spiritual component is certainly not necessary to get to an abolitionist conclusion" so very true- almost all of the vegans I know IRL are atheists. I don't always agree with everything Mr. Francione says, but I do think that he is, overall, very wise and has a great attitude. I'm going to take a few quotes from this :-)