Is Niman a step in the right direction?

[Guest guest]

Hello Susan,

 

Your question is a pretty common one people have and it's a very

important one as well. The Niman interview demonstrates the limitations

of arguing for veganism as a tool to reduce suffering.

 

You mentioned the exploitation of animals as a problem. The dominant

way of thinking about ethical veganism does not object to

exploitation and instead objects only to the unnecessary suffering of

those we exploit. This stream of veganism focuses on factory farms,

since so much suffering happens there.

 

If we think of ethical veganism only as a way to reduce suffering, we

may reach the logical conclusion that it's okay to kill animals who did

not suffer (or who suffered less).* This is where Niman comes in; if we

don't object to animal exploitation itself, we can eat animals from

Niman or from family farms and remain true to our ethical principles.

One of the surprising aspects about ethical veganism as anti-suffering

is that it logically negates itself.** This is not to say that being

against suffering is bad (far from it!), just that it doesn't lead to

veganism the way we've been told it does.

 

What's interesting is that, like you, most ethical vegans I've spoken

with do think the exploitation of others is a problem. This

recalls the roots of veganism, first defined by the Vegan Society in

1951 as the ideal of "liv[ing] without exploiting animals." If

you read the entire declaration***, you'll notice the absence of the

words 'cruelty' and 'suffering.' This is no accident: it's a

recognition that the suffering is a result of the exploitation, so the

work we do to end exploitation will automatically work to alleviate

suffering as well.

 

So the answer to your question is that Niman and family farms are a

step in the right direction for those who do not find exploitation to

be problematic. For those who object to the exploitation of others, I

submit that Niman is not a step in the right direction because

exploitation is exploitation, whether it's on a factory farm or a

family farm.

 

If you're interested in a perspective on ethical veganism beyond

anti-suffering, I suggest visiting these two sites:

 

L.O.V.E.: http://loveallbeings.org/vegan-blog/

The Vegan Ideal: http://theveganideal.blogspot.com/

 

I'm happy to continue discussing this topic off-list with any who are

interested.

 

Warmly,

Victor

 

* People often say something here about transport and slaughter, but

the suffering caused by those practices could be reduced as well. Would

it then be ethically permissible for us to kill those animals?

 

** Historically, this can be traced to a misunderstanding of Peter

Singer's Animal Liberation, which inspired the modern animal

welfare movement. Far from endorsing veganism, the book contains

passages approving of killing animals, such as "So we must ask

ourselves, not: Is it ever right to eat meat? But: Is it right

to eat this meat?" (Second Edition, p 160).

 

*** http://www.ivu.org/history/world-forum/1951vegan.html

---

>I saw Nicolette Hahn Niman on KRON this morning. She has written a

book called Righteous Pork Chop. She is against factory farming, but

believes that animals can be raised and slaughtered humanely for meat

and considers herself an environmentalist. She is married to the Niman

of Niman Ranch but I think she is a vegetarian. She believes in

returning to older,smaller systems of farming, reducing the need for

medications and causing less pollution. Does anyone have some insight

on all of this? I am not sure if it is a way to justify the

exploitation of animals or perhaps a small step in the right direction.