Pro Veganism: Ethics, Environment, and Nutrition

Introduction: The Rise of Veganism

A strictly vegetarian diet is best suited to the human body's needs, mankind's capacity for survival on earth, and our inherent compassion. Switching to such a diet is fairly simple and creates the opportunity to lead a healthier, happier, and gentler life (Marcus, xi).

For numerous reasons, humanity has been increasingly turning to veganism in recent years. Some vegan supporters assert that consuming or utilizing animal products is unethical according to their religious beliefs or values. Others put forward arguments about animal consciousness and the ethics of industrial farming. Those who identify as vegan most often do so owing to environmental, animal rights, or personal health concerns, which can shift over time. Several vegans begin as vegetarians, gradually ceasing consumption of milk, eggs, and other animal by-products, while others turn purely vegan from the outset. In Maurer's (2002) view, numerous vegan and vegetarian leaders agree that vegetarianism is not any static state; rather, it represents a developing process characterized by individual motivational change and increasing commitment (11). Donald Watson, who is credited with coining the word "veganism," stated that veganism represents the ultimate stage in a vegetarian's journey (as cited in Steele 11).

Ethics: Animal Welfare and Industrial Farming

Veganism advocates maintain that industrial livestock production is absolutely intolerable, atrocious, and outdated. In Immanuel Kant's (1997) opinion, cruel treatment of animals is unethical and demeans humanity. According to another view, cruel treatment of animals is intolerable because it is likely to make one insensitive and spiteful towards fellow human beings as well (as cited in McPherson 3). A key reason for the adoption of veganism is usually a person's discomfort with consuming a being that breathes and feels. Barbara McDonald's 2000 study on turning vegan reveals that most individuals who converted from non-vegan to vegan claim they already possessed compassionate feelings for animals prior to making the change. They confessed to "compartmentalizing" animals — that is, they maintained compassionate feelings towards cats, dogs, and other pets, but attempted to ignore similar feelings for the farm animals they consumed (Steele 11).

The term "ethical vegan" has been used to describe those who turn vegan with an ethical motive in mind. Their primary concern deals with the exploitation of both humanity and animals. Their belief is that utilizing animal parts as food, or in household items and clothing, is unethical. They oppose the act of torturing and killing animals to make products, for medical research, or for entertainment. They are also concerned about the effects that the violence witnessed in animal processing factories has on human beings. The controversies surrounding ethical veganism are complex, encompassing questions about products derived from animals without directly killing them — for example, wool, which does not claim the sheep's life. However, ethical vegans assert that shearing is a damaging and occasionally painful activity for the animal. They refrain from wearing leather, as it clearly involves killing and skinning an animal. They also deliberate on how far to take their beliefs — for instance, whether to avoid processed white sugar, which is typically filtered using animal bones. Completely avoiding animal exploitation in product processing is very difficult; even "organic" crops are fertilized using animal manure (Steele 11).

The practice of intensive animal farming was introduced during the latter part of the twentieth century in industrialized nations. That half-century witnessed maximum production of cheaply-priced milk, meat, and eggs. By the century's end, this system began to spread far and wide, with most agricultural policymakers perceiving industrial animal production as an ordinary component of economic growth and an undisputed necessity (Jacqui 5). Ever since, an unprecedented worldwide growth has ensued in the proportion of farm animals utilized for producing eggs, milk, meat, and — more recently — fish, as well as in the quantity of produce yielded from individual animals (Jacqui 10).

The massive growth in industrial animal farming that would be required to double the present level of livestock production threatens the genetic diversity of farmed animals on a global scale. High-yielding breeds of cattle were typically developed for use in comparatively high-input agricultural systems and temperate climates, while native breeds in developing nations were adapted to cope with poor-quality feed and local environmental conditions — including drought, heat, parasites such as ticks, and disease. These conditions can intensify the chances of production-related failures and bring about intense suffering for ill-adapted animal breeds. Animal scientists argue that it is imperative to continue farming indigenous and less commercial breeds, as these may carry important genes linked to disease resistance or resilience in the face of a changing environment (Jacqui 11).

Knowledge of factory farming is generally the catalyst for individuals embarking on a journey toward veganism. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations — commonly known as factory farms — have emerged as the leading approach to animal rearing for food across the globe. Factory farms house chickens, cows, goats, sheep, pigs, turkeys, and other animals together in heavily packed facilities where they are constantly dosed with antibiotics. Through hormones and selective breeding, the animals grow so large that they can barely bear their own weight and frequently break their legs. Their breeders treat them as commodities, often subjecting them to extremely brutal treatment — including bashing their heads against walls, prodding them with heated implements, and slitting their throats while the animals are still conscious. Calves, chicks, and other newborn animals are separated from their mothers at birth. Calves in particular are deprived of their mother's milk, with males typically confined to small, dark crates to induce anemia — a practice that produces the pale white veal preferred by consumers. Some individuals turn vegan because they are guilt-ridden and saddened by the idea of consuming anything that is a product of torture, a feeling typically arising from awareness of how the food processing industry and farms treat animals (Steele 12).

Human Moral Responsibility and Animal Consciousness

Mankind is the sole species possessing moral consciousness of its actions and decisions, and therefore has a choice to behave ethically or unethically. One among many ethical arguments for adopting veganism contends that such a lifestyle represents the sole coherent recognition of the ethical truth that killing animals is wrong (Gelderloos 4). Although animal science can account for the close resemblance between human and animal physiology, and can assess whether animals experience suffering and pain in ways similar to humans, science alone cannot determine whether animals and humans possess equal moral status. This issue is more philosophical in nature, hinging on whether an animal is a "moral person," akin to a human being. Human beings fall under this category of moral persons because we possess moral rights, a moral position, and moral worth. We have moral obligations toward one another and are required to treat each other in a morally responsible way. This moral personhood enables mankind to conclude, for instance, that attacking, abducting, torturing, or killing fellow human beings is wrong. Science informs us that considerable differences exist between humans' and animals' cognitive skills, and that even among animals, cognitive skill levels differ. Therefore, the claim that animals and human beings possess equal moral value appears to be an unsound one. Increased self-awareness and capacity for sentience will increase moral worth. However, the challenge lies in modifying business practices and animal laws so that animals' varying levels of moral worth are taken into account (Fieser 2008).

Ultimately, the choice rests with us. Cattle may be the sole capital asset for a large number of people living in poverty, and are crucial in providing food, draught power, fuel, and fertilizer. Rich nations, however, face an entirely different situation, as they overproduce and over-consume animal products. Uncontrolled manufacture and consumption of animal products in developed nations, accompanied by tremendous wastage of food grains used as animal feed, constitutes a key driver of the worldwide rise in food prices, which disproportionately harms the poor. Lowering animal product consumption — especially meat — would bring about a significant decrease in the resources required to feed the earth's rapidly growing human population. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) remarked in 2001 that a shift from meat to plant products as food, wherever feasible, would be able to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and boost energy efficiency (Jacqui 5).

Research performed on animal consciousness and trans-marginal inhibition confirms that animals do indeed experience suffering, pain, and premature death. Sensitive persons can feel the distress of the cows and chickens slaughtered for food. The issue is not only about the cessation of cattle grazing, but about animals being injected with antibiotics and hormones that make them extremely sick — and that we ultimately consume these animals (Harper 122–123).

The aim of intensive livestock production is the creation of a "high-input, high-output" production system. This system treats animals as machines of production rather than as breathing, feeling beings with their own unique psychological and physical needs. Maximizing productivity entails encouraging extremely rapid growth and high yields through selective breeding and feeding animals nutrient-rich cereal and soy protein-concentrate. Feed additives and growth-boosting treatments such as antibiotics are routinely used in many nations to encourage high yield. Effective animal welfare incorporates protection of animals from hunger, thirst, pain, suffering, injury, adverse weather, disease, fear, and distress, as well as ensuring that animals are not frustrated by their inability to behave naturally. Intensive livestock production, however, seeks to maximize individual animals' cost-effectiveness and output, even when this directly opposes their welfare needs (Jacqui 10).

There are several ways in which intensive livestock production conflicts with animal well-being. This system of rearing employs close confinement — crates and cages — bare outdoor feedlots, or overfull sheds. Factory farmed pigs and poultry may never have seen daylight. Breeders typically use high-yield or rapidly-growing breeds, and the animals exhibit an increased likelihood of developing painful production-linked disorders. Health issues associated with intensive production include high levels of painful lameness and heart failure among chickens reared rapidly for meat; heart disease and lameness among pigs bred for large muscles and rapid growth; and mastitis and lameness among high-yielding dairy cows. Laying hens experience brittle bones due to calcium deficiency, arising from their extremely high egg output (Jacqui 10).

Factory farmed animals piled into bare barns cannot carry out many natural behaviors, such as nest-building, exercising, foraging for food, and exploring their environment. Caged hens have no space to spread their wings, and sows in farrowing and gestation crates as well as calves imprisoned in veal crates cannot even turn around. Deprived of natural activity, they develop numerous harmful and aberrant behaviors resulting from social tensions, boredom, and frustration — including feather-pecking, tail-biting, cannibalism, bar-biting, belly-nosing, air-chewing, fighting, and harassing other captive animals who cannot move away as they would in a natural setting. To minimize injuries, breeders partly cut off hens' beaks and clip the teeth and tails of piglets, typically without administering pain relief (Jacqui 10).

Vertebrates possess a nervous system, which means they can consciously feel pain. This capacity makes them eligible for a form of personhood, implying that freedom from pain is a natural right. Almost every use to which animals are put — food, entertainment, research, clothing — involves suffering and is therefore difficult to justify. Simply having control over lesser beings does not authorize mankind to abuse, harm, or torture them. As one analogy illustrates: a museum owning the original Mona Lisa is not authorized to damage it. Similarly, human dominance over animals is no excuse for treating them however we wish.

The inconsequential interests of mankind do not take precedence over the fundamental interests of animals. A desire to eat a hamburger does not override a cow's interest in staying alive. Humanity's interest in applying cosmetics does not take precedence over lab animals' interests in being freed from agonizing toxicity tests. Skinning animals for luxury clothing is similarly unjustified. In the majority of cases, humanity's specific interests when exploiting animals are rather minor in comparison to animals' interests in avoiding pain and staying alive (Fieser 2008). We treat animals as prey, tools, or property to be manipulated rather than as breathing, sentient beings with inherent value. We assess their worth only in terms of their usefulness to our comfort, and to defend this callousness we classify them as "other" beings, unworthy of compassion except when it is convenient for humans (Huse 6–7).

Conclusion

Veganism is associated with significant societal benefits. Several scholars have demonstrated that decreased livestock consumption reduces environmental degradation, improves health, lowers medical expenses, and decreases human and animal suffering. In spite of these advantages, very few people adopt this lifestyle. Understanding how vegans uphold their values can help us gain better insight into how individuals, in general, lead a life that honors their principles. This information can prove valuable to anyone interested in encouraging — or personally considering — a healthy, ethically conscious, or environmentally conscious way of living (Steele 47).