Veganism and materialism

After reading some discussion on lemmygrad about veganism, I felt the need to share my thoughts in a separate thread, as comments weren't appropriate for the wall of text I'm about to throw.

Before we start, very important precision. This is not about environmental veganism, only about animal-liberation veganism. Consuming less animal products will be a lifestyle change we must anticipate to limit environmental destruction. This is about the moral philosophy of veganism and its contradictions with materialism. 

Intro

Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.

Now, I must say, if one is to contest the validity of this syllogism as a basis for veganism I encourage them to provide one since it could drastically change my point of view.

Like many syllogisms, there is appeal and validity to it until you question the premises. Let's review them under a materialistic lens. 

Morality and materialism

The first premise is that it is immortal to kill and exploit humans. As leftists, we tend to wholeheartedly agree with such a statement, as it encapsulates our ambitions and dreams, however this cannot be pursued for a political manifest beyond utopian wishful thinking. Historically, killing has been justified as a high moral act whenever the one being killed was deemed worthy of death. The reason it is generally considered immoral to interrupt one's life is because humans simply have to collaborate to survive, therefore every society has developed a social construct that allows us to live as a social productive species. But whenever a war enemy, criminal, or dissident person is being killed under certain circumstances, the killing becomes justified, morally right. 

As materialists, we don't base our interpretation of morality on a notion of some metaphysical, reality-transcending rule, and even less in relation to an afterlife. Morality is a human construct that evolves with material conditions. In that case, the relationship of human morality with non-human animals becomes more complicated than it seems. Humans do have empathy for other species but are also able to consume their flesh and products, a contradiction that has defined the construction of morality around non-human animals through history. This explains why it seems desirable for a lot of people to stop unnecessary animal cruelty while still wanting to consume their flesh, there is an act of balancing between empathy and appetite.

Equality of species and violence

Now you might have noticed that this framework is definitely human-centric. That brings us to the second premise, which is the equality of all species. By all means, it is absolutely outdated to maintain the idea of "human superiority" on all non-human species in the current times. As materialists, we should realise that humans evolved at the same time as other species, are dependent on the ecosystem, and that there is no fundamental variable that we have to consider as a criteria for ranking in an abstract "order of things".

That said, the equality of all species doesn't automatically mean the disappearance of inter-species violence. Firstly, we cannot stop unnecessary violence between fellow living beings that don't share our means of communication (unless we exerce physical control over them, but that's even worse). Secondly, there is an assumption that only humans possess the ability to choose to follow a vegan diet, which is extremely strange considering that it makes humans the only specie to have the capacity to be moral. Either non-human animals are excused for their chauvinistic violence against other species because they are seen as too limited, determined by their instinct, but it makes humans actually morally superior to other species. Or the animals must be held accountable for inter-species violence, which no vegan upholds, thankfully. Last option would be to consider that inter-species violence is part of life, which I agree with and think is the materialistic approach, but that means there is no reason to adopt a vegan diet.

Conclusion

So what does that let us with? Morality being a social construct with a material use in a human society, and humans being fundamentally empathetic, it is completely understandable that society will be progressing towards diminishing meat consumption to allow the minimization of animal suffering. But the exploitation of animals as means of food production doesn't have a materialistic reason to go away (unless we're talking about climate change, of course). The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like any other. 

This is mostly why I would discourage pushing people to abandon all animal products in the name of ethics. What should be encouraged is acceptance of every specific diet, be it religious diets, or animal-liberation diets. Strict vegetarianism must be a choice of heart that is based on profound empathy, not a superior moral choice or, worse, a moral imperative.

muad_dibber ,
@muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Considering the amount of land waste, water waste, energy waste, environmental damage, pointless production on 'feed crops' over human food, there's no materialist argument in favor of carnist production.

So even if you turn your eyes away from the immense suffering of our animal comrades, then you're still left with no materialist arguments in favor of carnism.

lil_tank OP ,
@lil_tank@lemmygrad.ml avatar

True, as I said, I was arguing against moral veganism not environmental veganism

muad_dibber ,
@muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Well just like people often become communists for moral reasons, outrage against the suffering of humanity, ppl also come to veganism through the same route, outrage against the suffering and commodification of our animal comrades, and a desire for their liberation.

I just don't understand why ppl attack the moral route to veganism specifically, especially since there are zero materialist reasons to justify carnism.

cucumovirus ,
@cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I wouldn't say anyone here is attacking the moral route to veganism, especially on an individual level, but I think we as Marxists shouldn't rely on it. The materialist argument is much stronger and more widely applicable. Moral veganism can also turn into a form of chauvinism directed towards various societies, especially in the third world, which do consume some animal products but aren't part of the capitalist meat industry and get all those products from animals they keep or hunt locally.

That to me forms a big distinction. On the one hand, denouncing all animal products as bad and, on the other, focusing the problem on the capitalist meat/animal industry. The moral argument doesn't lead to useful practice because it implies problems in individual choices of consumption and not systemic issues stemming from the production side. Many of us do come to communism for moral reasons initially but then we learn the proper materialist arguments for it which turn communism from utopian to scientific and inform practice.

simply_surprise ,
@simply_surprise@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I think it's interesting to see how much veganism is discussed in places like this, but I've never heard of it discussed as policy in an AES project or in Marxist theory.

Pili ,

Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.

I would like to argue that point because I'm having a problem with it.
I don't think "equal" is the adequate term here, it's very broad and vague. Some people are tall, some are short. Some are strong, some are weak. Not every human is equal, so of course not every animal is equal.
It may be right to say that they are, but it's necessary to precise in what way. Maybe "equal in their ability to feel" would be appropriate.

Secondly, the syllogism you present assumes that the moral consideration extended to animals should directly correlate with the treatment of
humans. However, many vegans, including myself, base our views not on comparison with human treatment but on the intrinsic value of animal
lives. We believe that exploiting animals is wrong primarily because they are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain, sadness, fear,
and even depression. Your syllogism is focused on the physical form of the individuals, but that's not what we think about.

An important point that we vegans advocate for is not justifying exploitation based on physical attributes. We believe it's not acceptable to exploit someone because their skin is dark, or because they have female genitalia, or because they have hooves. The value of an
individual extends beyond mere physical characteristics. Our moral perspective posits that inflicting intentional harm on sentient beings purely for our pleasure is ethically wrong. If a chair were sentient, hypothetically, it would deserve similar considerations.

So, if you want to use a syllogism, the correct one would be as follow: It is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings; humans
and non-human animals are sentient beings; therefore, it is immoral to
cause harm to and exploit both human and non-human animals.

The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like
any other.

I understand your point, but I don't think an appeal to nature is a very productive type of argument.
Our whole existence revolves around surpassing nature, that's why we plant crops, harvest them with motorized tools, live in brick houses, etc...
There is a reason the definition of natural is "as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people".

Moreover, many societal rules explicitly contradict what might be considered "natural" behavior. For instance, despite murder and rape occurring in the animal kingdom, human societies have made such actions illegal. Hence, relying on what's "natural" as a guidepost for morality doesn't seem consistent with the progression of our civilizations.

I think that as leftists, we should strive to abolish any kind of ideology that preaches the unjust discrimination and exploitation of others based on their physical attributes, whether it be speciesism, carnism, racism, sexism, ableism, and so on...

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • leftistinfighting@lemmygrad.ml
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •