Appeal to Opinion, Animal Ethics and Discussion ~ Paul Goodsell

[Carolyn Bailey]

This article, by Paul Goodsell of The Kind Little Blog, was written in response to a particular incident, but I think it's relevant as a general matter. He raises some interesting and important issues. 

 

Appeal to Opinion, Animal Ethics and Discussion 

Written by Paul Goodsell 

When it comes to animal ethics I am vocal. It’s an issue I care strongly about and one that I won’t uncritically accept other people’s opinions on. Just as a reasonable person wouldn’t idly put up with racist, sexist or homophobic comments, I won’t put up with misguided comments concerning animal exploration and abuse. I think if one can accept the former they can accept the latter. Often, though, people won’t. Apparently because the latter is concerning a different species it is “different”; not of the same league. This is blatant speciesism. By definition, it necessarily is.

The reason I came to writing this post is following an exchange over at She Cooks She Gardens, one of my favourite gardening / foodie* blogs. Erin, the she that does the cooking and gardening in the blog name, recently attended the Eat Drink Blog conference. One of the sessions she attended inspired a bit of a moral dilemma in her, as to whether she, a vegetarian, would eat meat if somebody had gone to effort cooking it and served it to her. Simon Bryant, of the Cook and the Chef fame, a vegetarian, presented a provocative argument during the session: he would think it rude if a vegetarian were to reject a meat meal that had been prepared for them.

I understand the moral dilemma. I have been served up food at restaurants many times that contained dairy even though I asked for it not to. On occasions I have sent the dish back, other times I have eaten it. I have always alerted the staff to the mistake though. In a more intimate setting, say a friend is having a dinner party, I am unsure how I would take the situation. I haven’t experienced it. My friends know well that I don’t eat any animal products. I thank them for being so understanding and accommodating.

Anyways, the discussion surrounding Erin’s post has opened up. And, me being me, has had some things to say. Sure enough, the responses…

“Everybody is entitled to their opinion”

I’ve grown a thick skin over the years. Well I like to think so. It annoys me when people choose to argue for some sort of sanctity of opinion rather than defend their own! And we’re not talking about closed-minded people here. We are talking about people that actively support “free-range” this, “humane” that. We’re talking about people that go to great ethical lengths with their food choices. I commend them for that. I don’t buy into the “free-range” and “humane slaughter” thing, and I am willing to articulate my position–I would never dismiss such a thing as “my opinion”–but these people fail to see the parallel. They consider, say, caged eggs morally wrong. They’re open about this and presumably share their “opinion” with other people. This is no different than me going a step further. To this, I take issue.

One of my comments was in reply to Tammi Jonas, “cultural theorist and pig farmer with a focus on ethics in food production”, who was one of the hosts of this “controversial” session. She said:

“Sometimes all I do is choose ‘less bad’ rather than ‘right’. I know what I am doing, it’s a well-considered ethic, and it works for me.”

I saw a flaw in this assertion. I responded:

“I think it should [instead] read like this: “Sometimes all I do is choose ‘less bad’ rather than ‘right’. I know what I am doing, it works for me.” I went on “Your assertion that it is a “well-considered ethic” isn’t supported by the conclusion you’re trying to defend”.

This rebuttal was met with censure not by Tammi but the moderator of the forum. Erin suggested that I create my own post on my own blog rather than disrespectfully rant, label and pick apart others points of views there. Hence this post.

(Wow. This post has turned into something of a rant. But that’s okay.)

I don’t feel that I have done anything wrong. I get told all the time that my speaking up is wrong, and that vegans are just like religious fundamentalists but rarely (rarely!) do the arguments get any robust refutation. That’s all I want. Respond to the argument, don’t be fallacious and don’t (don’t) resort to ad hominems (attacks on the arguer). We all have these opinions. We like them to be heard. Some we are more passionate about than others, and those are the ones we tend to get behind, and share more vigorously. I wish we could all do that. And I wish the respect didn’t fall at a level of wanting to be able to do and say anything we like–within the social norm, it seems. Rather, I wish we would share our views and be open to any criticism they may attract (again, without ad hominem), and either alter, or strengthen our views based on that criticism. To dismiss bodies of discussion on loose terms such as “ranting” and “religious fundamentalism” isn’t productive. To me, it reeks of guilt and unease more than anything.

**

So why am I vegan?

Simple. I don’t believe we–humans… us–have the right to exploit animals for unnecessary ends. I am an abolitionist. I don’t support the welfarist paradigm. That animals can be exploited and killed provided that they live subjectively happy lives. Nope. I believe that exploiting animals at all is wrong and that in being wrong we have a responsibility to abolish these practices. And if some form of exploitation–say, some extremely beneficial form of medical experimentation–is said to be right, well the burden rests on the arguments to be made for it. A religious sermon this resembles say some. Why? Because it resembles religious sermons in some ways. This says nothing more than that religious sermons are religious sermons, and that some people take issue with religious sermons. When vegans are said to be as bad as religious fundamentalists it implies that (1) religious fundamentalists are necessarily bad; and (2) the badness of religious fundamentalism exists within this title.

**

The point of this post is to get the people that have a problem with–or maybe support– what I said over at She Cooks She Gardens to engage with my position further. I want people to share their views. I want them to say whatever they want to say. On one proviso, they address my arguments, not me, and do not argue for a seemingly inalienable right to do what one wants–because it is the norm or steeped in tradition. We can all agree that we can’t just do as we please. Some things are illegal, some things are wrong, somethings a grey. All things are open to discussion. Some conclusions may be uglier, and more inconvenient than others. Let’s celebrate knowledge and progress, shall we?

 

The Kind Little Blog is written by Paul Goodsell, owner of The Kind Cleaner, an eco-friendly cleaning business in Adelaide, South Australia. Here he talks about a lot of things: veggie gardening, green cleaning, environmental issues, cycling, (R)Adelaide--lots of stuff!

 

[Kerry Baker]

I would have no problem at all with politely refusing food if it wasn't vegan. The objection that this might be 'rude' is to belittle the personal belief of the person who chooses to be vegan that I suspect would not be an issue at all if for example we were talking about a person who eats only kosher or halal. I wonder, following Melanie Joy's discussion on carnism, if the person was offered a dish of golden retriever or other type of companion animal, whether they would feel it necessary to eat to be polite. The notion that it would be rude not to eat a meat dish speaks to the attitude that to be vegan/vegetarian is extreme or that it is a cultish fad or other types of accusations sometimes leveled against ethical vegans. I have long suspected that the more volatile the response to a vegan is, the more the person is struggling with a deep seated discomfort about consuming animals. I think it is important to stand up for a personal belief and not be swayed by these emotive arguments that in some way we are offending others by choosing compassion over taste buds.