Learning from ex-vegetarians

[Guest guest]

Hello Brian,

 

I thought of something that might help clarify how a focus on reducing

the suffering of non-human animals does not imply anything about their

use. Peter Singer, whose " reduce suffering " philosophy is the basis of

modern, conventional animal advocacy, wrote in his book Animal

Liberation (Second Edition):

 

" [R]eplace factory farm eggs with free-range eggs if you can get them;

otherwise avoid eggs. " (p. 177)

" So we must ask ourselves, not: Is it ever right to eat meat? But: Is it

right to eat this meat? " (p. 160)

 

So, according to Singer, the originator of the " reduce suffering "

philosophy used in conventional animal advocacy, it's very logical to

eat humanely bred, raised, and killed non-human animals if one wishes to

reduce suffering. If Singer, in the book that started the modern animal

welfare movement, writes " reduce suffering " means switching to humane

animal products, I think it's natural for the non-vegetarians we speak

with about reducing suffering to think the same.

 

Some advocates do care solely about reducing suffering and not about the

use of non-human animals and I think the " reduce suffering, "

anti-factory farm approach is very appropriate for them . For many

others, however, it is about the use of non-human animals. For us, I

think we would do well to consider the growing popularity of humane

animal products and consider whether our advocacy is consistent with our

goals.

 

Victor

 

Brian wrote:

 

" I went from being someone who didn’t believe we

had the right to use animals, to someone more concerned with suffering. "

 

It is simple nonesense to me that simply because I focus on reducing the

suffering of animals that I would not care about their use in anyway

shape or form. ... It simply sounds like weakness on behalf of the

author and they used the concept of reducing suffering to justify their

own misgivings. If they wanted to eat animals they would figure out a

way how, so they simply decided that they wanted to eat animals. Why

would you believe that animals are not OURS and then one day that they

are? Because there is no suffering? This is bad logic.

 

--

The Vegan Ideal: http://veganideal.org/

Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/

[Guest guest]

Hi Victor,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal. I actually see the truth in both " sides " and do not need to be convinced of one way or the other. We all strive to extend our compassion in our own ways towards non-human animals. May we continue to work together, smile at our differences, and make this planet a happier, more peaceful place for all beings.

 

Everyone is awesome in what they do in the vegan world, and I am so grateful,

Donna 

On 1/17/10, Victor Tsou <victor wrote:

Hello Brian,I thought of something that might help clarify how a focus on reducingthe suffering of non-human animals does not imply anything about their

use. Peter Singer, whose " reduce suffering " philosophy is the basis ofmodern, conventional animal advocacy, wrote in his book AnimalLiberation (Second Edition): " [R]eplace factory farm eggs with free-range eggs if you can get them;

otherwise avoid eggs. " (p. 177) " So we must ask ourselves, not: Is it ever right to eat meat? But: Is itright to eat this meat? " (p. 160)So, according to Singer, the originator of the " reduce suffering "

philosophy used in conventional animal advocacy, it's very logical toeat humanely bred, raised, and killed non-human animals if one wishes toreduce suffering. If Singer, in the book that started the modern animal

welfare movement, writes " reduce suffering " means switching to humaneanimal products, I think it's natural for the non-vegetarians we speakwith about reducing suffering to think the same.Some advocates do care solely about reducing suffering and not about the

use of non-human animals and I think the " reduce suffering, " anti-factory farm approach is very appropriate for them . For manyothers, however, it is about the use of non-human animals. For us, Ithink we would do well to consider the growing popularity of humane

animal products and consider whether our advocacy is consistent with ourgoals.VictorBrian wrote: " I went from being someone who didn’t believe wehad the right to use animals, to someone more concerned with suffering. "

It is simple nonesense to me that simply because I focus on reducing thesuffering of animals that I would not care about their use in anywayshape or form. ... It simply sounds like weakness on behalf of the

author and they used the concept of reducing suffering to justify theirown misgivings. If they wanted to eat animals they would figure out away how, so they simply decided that they wanted to eat animals. Whywould you believe that animals are not OURS and then one day that they

are? Because there is no suffering? This is bad logic.--The Vegan Ideal: http://veganideal.org/Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/

---..................................................................................................................: BAY AREA VEGETARIANS                   BayAreaVeg.org :

: Charter/Post Guidelines http://bayareaveg.org/charter :: Events Calendar - http://bayareaveg.org/events        :: Newsletter - http://bayareaveg.org/news               :

: Ultimate Guide - http://bayareaveg.org/ug             :: Veg Food Finder - http://bayareaveg.org/finder        :: Volunteer - http://bayareaveg.org/volunteer.htm       :

...................................................................................................................