Vegans and Morality

…A regular feature on aspects of morality in veganism by Lizé Oosthuizen

This month I would like to deconstruct 8 of the most recent arguments/statements provided by some of my omnivorous friends for consuming flesh. There are, of course, many more that could be ventured but are beyond the scope of this article.

1. As vegetarians, we have probably all heard the following: “But we have canines, why would we have them if we are not omnivores?”

This is a common misconception; humans DO NOT have canines. As very aptly stated by Michael Bluejay (a vegetarian himself who has a most wonderful website guide to vegetarian lifestyles), they are canines by name only, not in form or function. They are named canines most likely (and logically) because of the position in the mouth relative to other teeth.

Have a look at the 2 pictures of the chimpanzee and human teeth – there is clearly a huge difference between our ‘canine’’ and that of a true natural omnivore such as the chimpanzee. Note also that the canines in both chimps and humans are divided by 4 teeth in the middle, hence our ‘canines’ got their name based on position relative to animals who have real canines.

2. Another one of my favourite sayings that I’ve heard more times than I care to count, would have to be: “Humans didn’t fight their way to the top of the food chain to become vegetarian!”

Perhaps I’m missing something but when exactly did this fight between man and animal occur? To my best knowledge are we at the “top of the food chain” because we simply decided that we belong there due to pure numbers, worldwide distribution of our species as well as, debatably, superior intellect (debatable because I think we are simply more creative than our furry friends, not more intelligent – but that will form the core of next month’s article).

I also find it necessary to elaborate on what ‘food chain in this sense really means, which is that we are the most populated animals on earth with the most potential due to our creativity and resultant abilities. It does not mean that we eat every other form of animal on the planet; especially not carnivorous animals that would most likely eat you were it not for your technological advances. A crocodile is a good example. In fact, as humans who consider ourselves so vastly superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, it is our responsibility to protect, rather than exploit, those below us on this ‘food chain’, which would more aptly be named ‘food hierarchy’.

3. And of course who can neglect to mention the all too well known ‘argument’: “Eating meat, especially fish, was responsible for our intellectual development“.

Really? By this reasoning are we also to assume that carnivores should be more intelligent than people? If not, why not? Could it be that as a different species, viz. Homosapiens, we simply have a larger capacity for intellect/creativity than other species of animals? Just like there are more intelligent animals and lesser intelligent animals?

Some of the most intelligent people I have contact with do not eat meat and most of the intellectually challenged persons I have the misfortune to know eat an abundance of meat. However, do not take this to mean that I am alluding that meat consumption makes an individual intellectually inferior. I am not saying this any more than I would agree that meat is necessary for brain development. One’s level of intellect is largely determined by genetics and I can guarantee you that no amount of flesh in one’s diet will make a genius out of a person who has inferior intellectual genes.

4. This next argument, surprisingly, did not cut the top 3: “Humans need protein from meat to survive and stay healthy.”

Why is it that the healthiest people I know don’t eat meat? Why is it that vegetarians, and especially vegans, are less prone to obesity than practicing omnivorous humans? Why is it that, according to studies, vegetarians and vegans live, on average, a decade longer than those who frequently eat meat? Over and above these obvious fumbles in the reasoning of the average omnivore theory promoters, I can attest to the fact that any healthy person does not require the amount of protein commonly believed by society.

Questionable sources of such blatantly false information abound and are most often purported by persons whose emotionally charged opinions undoubtedly stem from desperate attempts to justify their clearly faulty eating habits.

What makes me believe I am an authority on this matter? Aside from thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hours of personal research and cross referencing, I am living proof. Being healthier than any of my meat eating friends who constantly consume protein in these exaggerated amounts and complaining of joint pains, stomach upsets, Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and many more, I am confident in concluding that the dietary differences account for much of these ailments, or in my case, lack thereof. Furthermore, as stated well by Michael Bluejay, ALL life forms require protein to survive and become strong – this includes elephants and they are also herbivores.

5. The following statement, often made in an attempt to be humorous and with a smug smile, must be one of the most poorly thought through arguments and as a result one of the most frustrating: “If animals weren’t meant to be eaten by man, why are they made of meat?”

At this stage I’d like to refer you back to my comments under point number 3 above. This statement is testament to the fact that meat consumption does nothing for brain development! Seeing that one often needs to explain one’s statements to flesh eating humans I will attempt the following analogy: if recreational drugs, such as cocaine, were not meant to be consumed, why are they made of chemicals that induce euphoria?

6. “Eating meat is natural! Just look at lions – they do it!”

Last time I checked there were quite a few notable differences between human beings and lions, or any other strict carnivores, for that matter! Furthermore, if one wants to make use of the ‘natural’ argument one should follow through on that all the way by hunting your dinner without guns and various other weapons you weren’t born with!

Is it not bad enough that we live such unnatural lives by driving cars instead of walking, using cell phones which emit harmful frequencies, eating processed foods laden with flavourants, colourants and preservatives and working in highly stressful jobs we were never meant to do? Why add to this burden by eating meat when we are so clearly not built for it? And all at the cost of innocent animals?!

7. Yet another intellectually deficient statement presented to vegetarians by ‘omnivores’: “Meat is food therefore we should eat it”

While meat may be food to carnivores and to some genuine omnivores in small quantities, it is not food for humans. Moths, for example, eat material and I’m sure if we were to eat material our bodies would find a way to process it (of course with no nutritional benefit), but does that mean it is food simply because some other animate species consumes it?

8. “But humans have always eaten meat!”

There is much controversy among professionals in the anthropology field on this matter and I am unfortunately not clued up enough on the specifics of human evolution, so I cannot debate this argument on a factual level of what happened in history. However, I can say that I do not see anybody quickly grasping at the opportunity to do much of anything else that our ancestors used to do. In fact, we pride ourselves for having evolved since then and view them as rather primitive creatures doing the best they could under circumstances. So why is it that we attach so much value to their eating habits?

Could it not be that it is simply easier to do so than to actually think for ourselves? Perhaps a fear of what we will be giving up – a comfort zone, if you will? We prize our convenience above truth and the betterment of our environment and those we share it with. The best judge of what we are meant to eat remains what our physiology tells us TODAY.

So what does it tell us? Instead of simply listing the various telltale signs of our dietary requirements, I refer you to and Michael Bluejay’s website. Of the many sites and books I have viewed and read, this is the most comprehensive one I have had the pleasure of coming across. A very convenient table appears on this link which compares carnivores, omnivores, herbivores and humans on various physiological differences and similarities – from the teeth, to the jaw, to the digestive tract and system, liver, kidneys, muscle development and nails.

In conclusion, it was well known that one of the greatest minds ever to have graced our earth was in favour of a vegetarian lifestyle and he was a vegetarian himself toward the end of his life: “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet” ~ Albert Einstein.

Although I agree with Einstein, I would like to add for clarity that humans do not need to physically evolve a vegetarian diet. What we require is mental evolution as to date the human body has not been proven to have evolved to process meat. Instead the facts point to the contrary – we are herbivores/fruitarians/vegetarians/vegans, call it what you will, but we are NOT built to consume meat.

Article by Lizé Oosthuizen

…A regular feature on aspects of morality in veganism by Lizé Oosthuizen

This month I would like to venture a topic which I experience as particularly problematic:  How moral is it to have domesticated pets?

Owing to my great love of animals, I have pets (4 cats – Sheba, the mother of the other 3: Snowflake, Simba and Toffee and a recent addition to our family, a Great Dane puppy called Frasier), but I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify ‘owning’ pets as this seems to be directly linked to animal abuse in at least 4 ways:

1. It makes animal shelters, SPCAs and the like, necessary because animals usually accepted as pets (dogs, cats, even rabbits and many other unfortunate animals) who don’t have human homes are automatically considered to be a nuisance and often a potential threat to public health and/or society.  The atrocities that happen at SPCAs are heart breaking, as it is daily practice to have animals that are in perfect health and often very young, euthanised due to limited space and resources and an overflow of new arrivals from, needless to say, irresponsible people.
2. In order to feed our lovely little meat-eating furry friends, most of us, especially in SA, are forced to buy foods from our local vets or pet shops that contain the left-overs of the very meat we refuse to purchase for our own direct consumption.
3. Pet breeders are another cause for concern as it is a well established fact that the purer a breed of animal the genetically weaker they become and therefore more prone to diseases and short life spans.  What’s more is that the animals used to breed are often overworked and treated as mere machines kept in order to produce ‘products’ for profits.  Furthermore, each time an animal is purchased from a breeder, one more animal in a shelter dies needlessly.
4. Finally, can it be considered fair to remove an animal from their natural environment and tendencies by containing them within our yards and feeding them a largely unnatural (and therefore unhealthy) diet?  Would they choose this life if they had a choice?  I find birds confined to cages particularly troubling as they rarely have any space to fly in these prisons kept by persons for their personal amusement from time to time.

Now this leads us to the first and more obvious of 2 moral dilemmas – how can we call ourselves true vegans if we still support animal cruelty in abattoirs and the farming industry by purchasing products that inevitably come from these most inhumane and unnatural organisations for the consumption of our pets?

The second moral dilemma is how natural is it to feed our pets with kibble which is, in most cases, chemical laden and full of ‘meaty flavours’ from dubious sources at best?  By way of example, for those of us with cats, we are very aware that the dry food/kibble contributes to urinary tract and kidney disease in them.  In order to reduce the risk there are all kinds of ‘wonderful’ additives introduced to the increasingly pricy kibble, which is meant to ease our conscience about feeding our pets such an unnatural and often detrimental diet.

Thirdly, animals are robbed of their free will which goes against the principles of vegans.

The source of the problem

One conclusion may be that the problem stems from humans deciding to domesticate animals in the first place.  If we never did this, animals roaming around free would be considered normal.  Perhaps they would have been separate from us much like lions in the wild are separate from where human settlements or urban areas are.  Cats and dogs would fend for themselves and live on natural diets, both unburdening humans from the constant responsibility of catering to their every whim and also gracing these wonderful animals with a longer, happier and healthier life span.

Of course, it could be pointed out that humans provide domesticated animals with shelter, food and safety, where otherwise they may have been subjected to the harshness of nature.  To such an argument I reply that nature takes its course and that “survival of the fittest” is a reality, unfortunate as it may be, but we even see this among people.  By way of example, certain individuals succumb to diseases and die of traditionally non-life-threatening diseases whereas others recover from diseases believed to be incurable – could this not be seen as similar?  In any event, domestication is no guarantee of a good life to any animal for the following off-hand reasons:

1. It is well documented that many animals are kept by abusive owners;
2. The food we, more often than not, feed our pets is unnatural and highly processed – this is most likely a reason why domesticated (and factory farmed) animals are known to develop cancers and other illnesses relatively uncommon to animals in the wild who eat natural diets and whose environment has not been compromised by humans in some way;
3. Pets often walk around outside their yards (cats are especially difficult to keep track of 24/7) and as a result they are often hit by cars, many of which may lie conscious and in pain for many hours before death.

So with the above being said, I am content to conclude that it is in the best interest of animals to be awarded the opportunity to fend for themselves, and attempt to survive as nature intended.  At least seen from this perspective each animal has a fighting chance and is not robbed of free will.

Practicality of implementation

Back to reality though:  due to the structure of our society and the long standing traditions and desires to ‘own’ domesticated pets, it is unlikely that people will adopt new lifestyles free of pets anytime in the near future and therefore we are left to do the best we can by adopting pets from the SPCA, Wetnose, etc, finding solace in the fact that we are providing them with a good home and excellent care while their presence is spared to grace our homes.

If you would like to do something for shelter pets, please visit these 3 links and request a daily reminder to click on a link on the site which allows sponsors to donate kibble to these animals in need: The Animal Rescue Site, Freekibble and Barking Mad.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” ~ Mahatma Gandhi 1869-1948

Article by Lizé Oosthuizen

… A regular feature on aspects of morality in veganism by Lizé Oosthuizen

Allow me this opportunity to introduce myself as a recently converted vegan following a 10 year devotion to vegetarianism. My name is Lizé Oosthuizen and I have chosen to get involved as a blog writer on the Vegan SA site in the hope of serving existing vegans, but also in order to influence people who have not yet made the leap to veganism (whether from vegetarian or omnivore).

Those of us who have been vegetarian/vegan for some time would most likely, at some point, have been informed by an omnivore of the fact that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Now I presume that this information is imparted to us in an attempt to shock us into deserting our values which led us to choose our vegetarian/vegan lifestyles, because we wouldn’t wish to possess any of the qualities an evil person such as Hitler may have possessed.

Firstly, I wish to point out, that Hitler’s choice to be a vegetarian had nothing to do with his actions against humanity. Secondly, we can all be served well by realising that even in the most evil of people there is some good. Thirdly, this kind of logic, for obvious reasons that I will not venture here, is based on the most unsound fallacious reasoning known as an ‘Ad hominem’ argument (the character, or another unflattering feature, of the person is addressed, rather than the argument he/she is making, in an attempt to discredit his/her argument). Fourthly, and most importantly, if even Hitler, as evil as he is considered to have been, can feel disgust at the inhumane treatment of animals, what does that say about the level of evil of those who see fit to support such an injustice?!

Are humans superior to animals?

The topic of my piece this month was sparked by an article I recently read online at: ‘The Africa Report’ entitled: “Hitlerian or Vegetarian slaughterhouses”.

What struck me most about this article in the Africa Report was a particular section of it subtitled: “Animalising of the human being”. Here a brief description is given of what occurs when people are dehumanised (or animalised) by those in power. The author makes a valid point that both animals and humans that are exploited due to their lack of power in society fall under a single system driven by profits. The heading of this section got me wondering, as I have on many occasions before, what is it that we humans consider so superior about being human as opposed to being animals?

This may seem like an odd question to ask, but it is very important to have an answer to this basic question, because if we are honest with ourselves, among all the creatures in the world, past and present, man has been and still is the cruellest – we rape, kill, abuse, destroy without mercy anything and everything that stands in our way of achieving success, as we see fit to define it. Wikipedia (although notably not always an accurate source, but for the purposes of this article suffices) considers humans as distinct from animals on grounds of mental capacity due to highly evolved brains. Among these abilities of higher intellect mentioned are: self-awareness, sapience and rationality.

Can we be so sure (and arrogant as to believe) that animals are not self-aware, that they are not rational creatures and carry within them no wisdom? From what vantage point do we make such claims? Have one of us perhaps been an animal? Could it be that our judgement of animals, their consciousness and intelligence has been nothing short of simplistic assumption?

Any person who has a pet knows they are capable of reason and emotion, not to mention that they are most certainly self-aware – so much so as to believe the world revolves around them (this is particularly true of cats!). And what of wisdom? Animals are all endowed with an amazing intuition and deep connection with nature – they work with nature, not against it – a lesson humanity would do good to learn.

So where has our “superior intellect” left us? We do not exercise enough thanks to cars, elevators, escalators and the like, we eat heavily processed, chemical laden, dead food (which I might add is largely responsible for virtually every disease known to man), we are killing our rain forests, whilst polluting our environment with chemical toxins, thereby reducing the quality of the air we breathe and essentially suffocating ourselves. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, which debatably due to man, may not be around for much longer either!

Do we still feel intellectually superior to animals?! How about morally?

Humans need to be animalised

So how is it that animals should not be ‘humanised’ and people not ‘animalised’? Evidence lends itself to my conclusion that if only people could become animalised we would be able to live in harmony with our environment and all in it. Animals need not be humanised, as the ‘human’ label does not carry with it much to be proud of. To be like an animal in harmony with nature is the ideal.

Oh and by the way, the next time an omnivore tells you “Hitler was a vegetarian, you know?!”, you would do well to advise them that Leonardo Da Vinci was one too (a vegan to be exact), in his own immortal words:
“Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds them. We live by the death of others. We are burial places! I have since an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they look upon the murder of man.”

Article by Lizé Oosthuizen