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.
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.
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…
While I don’t agree fully with the original post, and especially with how it’s worded around what is “natural” I don’t agree with your line of argument here.
When we say everyone is equal, we mean that everyone should enjoy equal rights and responsibilities, not that everyone is identical. Marxism definitely recognizes and takes into account that every individual person is different.
What is the intrinsic value of any life? All of these concepts are socially and historically constructed and not absolute.
The ability to feel or think is directly connected to and stems from the physical form. Consciousness is a part of our material reality and our physical bodies, our thoughts and feelings are not separate from it. We know, and are still learning, what and how different other species feel or think, but our human societies, while we are a product of nature, have reached a more complex level of social and historical relations in which we must operate in order to address these issues. We do place humans above other species, for better or worse, and that is not a relation that can change easily, if at all.
The point is to move away from a moral argument, just how our critique of capitalism and similar systems is not primarily a moral one. Morality is, again, socially and historically constructed. People laughed and cheered at public executions in Europe in the 19th century. I do agree that the reduction of meat consumption in the west would be a good thing, and it’s good for any individual that is able to make that choice and does so, but a moral argument fails where a Marxist one is much stronger. We should strive to drastically change the west’s meat industry but that will not happen by individual choices made by consumers. Suggesting that people eating meat is a moral failing of the individual will not lead to anything. Systemic change is necessary which we will probably not see under capitalism, but the argument to be made for radical changes to our meat industry is much stronger when it comes from an environmental position, or a more general position of worker exploitation in the meat industry - an argument which can be applied universally without condemning any specific cultures or societies which consume and use animal products sustainably, and not a moral one which cannot be universalized. The only way widespread changes in human diet occur, and subsequently changes in our relations to these animals, is through changes to the mode of production in our meat industry. We know that any such radical changes do not come about from individual consumer action, but from organized class struggle and ultimately changes on the side of production.
Equating racism, sexism, ableism, etc. with human treatment of animals is quite chauvinistic and fails to take into account the material basis for any of these phenomena. Just preaching that these things are wrong doesn’t do anything. What can help is proper education which includes an analysis of the material conditions that brought about these phenomena and ultimately no real change can happen in these areas until the material conditions which cause them are changed.
Thank you for the clarification, english isn’t my first language.
If that’s the case, then my point the he has the wrong syllogism still stands as vegans do not think that humans and non-human animals are equal in that definition. (Nobody thinks hens should have the right to vote for example)
Yes it is, of course. My point was that it doesn’t matter to the reason we are against their exploitation. We aren’t against it because they are fuzzy and cute, but because they are sentient, they suffer and grieve the loss of their peers. Yes they can feel those because they have a central nervous system basically identical to ours with a few minute differences, but if they were sentient for any other reasons, we would still be against their exploitation.
Well, that’s debatable but it’s not the subject here. Consciousness being a part of material reality is more of a belief than a fact, and there is a lot of research done by assuming that consciousness is fundamental, and material reality exists within it. You can look up the work of Donald Hoffman for example, it’s very interesting.
Currently we do not know what’s the nature of consciousness and reality, but whatever the answer is I think it’s totally irrelevant to the way we live and it’s just mental masturbation. At the end of the day we evolve in a material manifestation of the universe and that’s what we should focus on.
I realize that, just the same way we placed white men above women and black people for a very long time. I don’t believe any of those assumptions about the value of an individual are helpful to today’s society, and also I don’t think that even if we decided that a group of individuals was inferior based on arbitrary criterias, it would be a good justification for making them suffer for our pleasure.
The point of OP’s post was to question the morality of veganism. That’s why I’m addressing his syllogism in that way.
However, even though I agree that the material arguments to abolish animal exploitation are much stronger from a rational point of view, let’s not forget that we humans are emotional creatures first, and so emotions have a much stronger potential to provoke us to review our ideas and actions. It’s no coincidence if every propaganda (even Marxist one) relies on emotional and not rational appeal.
Also, in a communist society where people will undoubtedly be more slanted towards solidarity, cooperation, and compassion, the number of people who will be concerned for moral reasons by the exploitation of animals will grow exponentially, creating tensions and infighting. This will need to be addressed, and the most likely way it will be done is by abolishing it since there is no material reason to support it.
Well, calling that chauvinistic is needlessly aggressive, especially in the abscence of any kind of argumentation. But it would be interesting if you could expand on that, and explain why you feel that way if you have time.
I’m not arguing that the OP’s syllogism is perfectly constructed, I’m arguing against your critique of it because I don’t think it’s valid either.
This is plain Idealism, and it’s something that’s demonstrably, scientifically false. We as Marxists are dialectical materialist and reject Idealist interpretations of reality. That is the broader problem in your comment, which probably I should have stated directly in my first reply. Your base assumptions here lead you to argue from and for an idealist position which is not compatible with Marxism, and in many cases in general goes counter to reality.
This is also false. The philosophy we take as the basis of our entire worldview has large effects on how we live our lives, especially with regard to political theory and practice. This is the whole point of Marxism and the scientific communist movement. It’s the basis on which Marxism is uniquely differentiated from other political ideologies like Liberalism or Anarchism, and it’s the reason for it’s wide success both in theory and practice.
The reasons we did, and still do, these things are material and primarily stem from our material conditions in various historical situations. The reasons these are improving are because the oppressed classes are gaining ground through class struggle. The material reality is changing which is affecting the way our ideology changes, not the other way around. Societies don’t become less racist or sexist because they just decide it’s morally wrong, changes in the material conditions improve the social and economic standing of these groups which in turn enables the societal changes in what’s considered moral. This is achieved by the political struggle of these and related groups.
I would not agree that we are emotional creatures first, as that view disregards the material basis of our emotions. Our emotions are not disconnected from our material reality and we are not as irrational as you suppose. We are complex social beings and a multiplicity of factors go into forming our ideologies, however, the material conditions play a large and primary role, as is taught by Marxist theory, and demonstrated in Marxist practice. People do come to Marxism for moral reasons, but successful practice which results in long term material gain for the oppressed classes comes from a dialectical materialist understanding and analysis of concrete historical situations. The basis and substance of our movements is material, we don’t preach morality and focus on choices of individuals. Marxist propaganda, even if it incorporates emotional appeals, is still grounded in material analysis and is expressed as such.
You cannot know what will happen in the future, especially once a communist society is achieved. In any case, this is not an argument that can affect our current reality.
This is also patently not true, people that eat meat benefit from eating it, similarly how even the poor proletarians in the West still do benefit from the imperialism conducted by their countries. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, especially environmentally, our current modes of animal farming are unsustainable and destructive and need to be radically changed, but there are reasons that most people today still eat meat. No real change will come about from preaching to consumers about their individual choices, especially in the current system. We do benefit from exploiting animals as we receive food and other products fairly cheaply and abundantly, not to mention the economic benefits of the bourgeoisie which owns the meat industry. To effectively challenge and change this, we should focus on the production side with a concrete materialist analysis, and not form our strategy around the moral condemnation or praise of individual consumer choices. There is nothing wrong with being vegan for moral reasons, but it alone doesn’t inform practice and offer concrete practical solution to the problem of capitalist animal industry.
Nowadays, for example, we largely condemn antisemitism and have laws in place against it, however that wasn’t the case throughout even much of the 20th century. The USSR, at the time of its foundation, was the first country to effectively challenge antisemitism and its practices which were common throughout Europe at the time. Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders made many speeches condemning it and educating the population, in addition with enacting laws against it. Their arguments were focused on the material basis of antisemitism, its roots and effects. The change in attitude in large sections of the entire Western population, not just that of the USSR, was ultimately the result of concrete policies and laws, and the spread of education to counter the material realities of antisemitism which was primarily done in the socialist world, but spread to the capitalist West in certain ways. Similar things happened with many other social aspects we now take for granted. With the current decline of material conditions in the West we see a resurgence of antisemitism, and especially sinophobia, which is a manifestation of the same phenomenon. The point is that it is very difficult, if not impossible to change peoples’ positions on issues which align with their material interests with moral arguments alone.
It’s not aggressive, I’m not calling it chauvinistic as a personal attack against you, it’s just my critique of your statement with, in fact, argumentation provided. Equating the positions of oppressed human groups with our treatment of animals and subsequently preaching, on equal ground, that all are absolutely bad is the definition of chauvinism, especially when those human groups are still oppressed with disastrous consequences in many situations. In my view this is sort of similar to the “all lives matter” arguments. Expanding on the argument - taking our western views and morality (which is largely influenced by our privileged material position in the world) and supposing that it’s the clearly correct solution everywhere and that everyone should abide by our standards is by definition chauvinistic. A widespread example are the excuses provided for the “human-rights” imperialism perpetrated by the West all over the world. Socialists are, of course, not a priori removed from this, as evidenced by conflicts between socialist states and the chauvinistic views taken in such cases by the stronger socialist powers in relation to the weaker ones, informed by national interests while ignoring the specificity of each country’s conditions. This again highlights the weakness and small scope by which the moral arguments against any such position are limited. If we instead use material analysis of concrete situations in their proper context, we can identify problems particular only to specific situations and find local solution to them. A one size fits all solution is not the answer, as demonstrated, for example, by the differences in socialist construction in different countries around the world.
Your last paragraph is oddly hostile and rude and chauvanist.
I was gonna jump in to correct the syllogism, but you already said it better than i would’ve so thank you!
Yes actually you’re right it was very poorly worded. Appeals to nature are more often than not reactionary.
What I meant wasn’t that “nature good we should do like nature” type of appeal we see all across the rightwing spectrum. The core argument is that humans aren’t alienated from “nature” for exploiting and killing other species, there is no break, we are animals that build, craft and organise in a complex way thanks to language. Our nests have become big and we’ve become conscious that we’re destroying ourselves by destroying the environment, but we’re still animals. In that sense, if we’re to say that speciesm is wrong for thinking humans are above all else, then I say okay, so humans are just a species like any other that uses all of its available power to do whatever it wants with other species.
And I know it has some nihilism to it, but in the end I find meaning in trying to connect to other species and building a better society for the human species, it’s just that we need to be realistic in the morality we’re trying to defend.
And basically, it just serves a basis to say that it’s unmarxist to scream “murderer” at someone who eats meat