Michael Vick... well, sort of. I have a problem with people having a problem with Michael Vick.
So the NFL quarterback Michael Vick plead guilty to dogfighting charges. “Dogfighting,” he added, “is a terrible thing.”
So what?
We are all Michael Vick. This was the topic of two posts/essays by Gary Francione (Scholar and Professor of law at Rutgers University School of Law), the first of which you can find here and the second here. Both are worthwhile reads. I’ll still sum up some of Gary’s ideas and some of my own:
The problem with the outrage, concern and illegality of Michael Vick’s involvement with dogfighting is that it can only be described as morally schizophrenic. Michael Vick has done something generally esteemed to be deplorable. Why do we esteem his actions to be deplorable? Why are his actions illegal? He inflicted unnecessary suffering on, and killed, animals for his own enjoyment. I don't view this as essentially different than an omnivorous lifestyle. I think it's essentially hypocritical for an omnivore to point a finger at Michael Vick. It is nutritionally unnecessary to eat animal products of any kind. The suffering and death that domestic livestock experience is unnecessary. The only "reason" to consume animal products is for the enjoyment created by the human sensation of taste. Unnecessary suffering and death for enjoyment.
In my conversations, if they ever reach this point, veganism is usually dismissed by either 1) deriding the claim that it is nutritionally unnecessary to eat animal products or 2) selectively interpreting scripture to justify an omnivorous diet. Gary Francione, after writing his essays and being interviewed on the Michael Smerconish Morning Show and Bill O’Reilly’s The Radio Factor, received a number of emails offering similar justifications and two other reasons: 3) Evolution and 4) Legality. Read Gary’s second essay on the topic for more information on justifications 3 and 4; I’m going to stick to the justifications more common to my personal conversations.
Justification one (1) came from my kind and loving mother during a lengthy conversation on the topic. I'm not sure how she feels now, but then she said something to the effect of, “I’m sorry Max, but I think that’s where you’re wrong. We do need to eat meat and dairy.” I offer the same invitation to anyone that I offered to her. Show me. I am not "calling on" anyone, I genuinely enjoy reading and thinking about scientific articles or philosophical papers. There are very few scientific, peer-reviewed articles that suggest you need something more than a vegan diet. I believe that careful examination of those articles that do reveals their illegitimacy; they are either plainly antiquated and/or lack true conclusive evidence. You will also find that many are paid for by a meat or dairy industry organization. At your request I will provide examples. The most significant scientific conclusion available is that both the World Health Organization and the American Dietetic Association maintain, citing hundreds of works and studies, that “Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.” In the year 2007 it is not necessary to eat animal products. Eating animal products is not unlike the activities of Michael Vick, causing unnecessary suffering and death for enjoyment.
Justification number two (2) really could be a post of its own, but I will try to be brief. Specifically in the context of Christianity (and Mormonism, since I suppose most people reading this are my Mormon friends and family), there is no clear religious defense to maintain an omnivorous diet. A careful examination of first chapter of the book of Genesis (and Abraham and Moses for you Mormons out there) reveals that the first “meat” for Adam was the herb of the field (Genesis 1:29 KJV) and this commandment was given at the same time in which Adam was given “dominion” over animals (Genesis 1:26). So, when Adam was given “dominion” over animals he was specifically given a commandment to eat plants, with no mention of animal flesh, milk, eggs, etc. Any argument that questions the continuation of "herb of the field" commandment after the fall must be applied equally to question whether or not Adam continued to have "dominion" after the fall. Either way, in the context of Mormonism, “dominion” should be very well understood because of regular reference to “unrighteous dominion” vs. “righteous dominion.” In LDS doctrine, a parent has “dominion” over his or her family just a bishop has “dominion” over his congregation; which is to say, that each has a special accountability concerning a realm of responsibility. If Adam (man) still has "dominion" over the beasts of the Earth, this means man has accountability and responsibility towards animals. That being clear, how can man’s “dominion” over animals be construed as condoning animal suffering and death when it is absolutely unnecessary? A parent does not eat his or her family, nor does a bishop eat or enslave his congregation.
All of my religious "support" for veganism can be considered arbitrary, since one might conclude that I am selectively interpreting scripture. But it is clear that we must come to some moral and philosophical conclusions for ourselves, without direct commandment from God. In Christian theology we are not commanded in all things. Does anyone not believe this? This point is especially apparent in Mormon scripture: Doctrine and Covenants 58:26-29. Just because we aren't commanded to be vegan doesn't mean we shouldn't be. A similar example is slavery. Christian scripture (including Mormon scripture) does not forbid slavery. During 96% of human history slavery has been acceptable and any slave owner, if living in accordance with the commandments of God, would be a perfectly “righteous” individual. The Old Testament even appears to condone slavery, suggesting that killing a slave is not tantamount to murder, but a lesser crime. Society has progressed beyond those antiquated ethics and we have concluded that slavery is a deplorable institution. We as Christians think of slave-ownership as immoral just as we hold the sins described in scripture to be immoral. The point here is that we can be enlightened––or receive revelation––beyond that which is commanded in the Bible. This is to say, just as we have grown to perceive the immorality of slavery, we can grow to perceive the immorality of animal enterprise without explicit command in holy writ. The human race has already reached that point with dogfighting, cockfighting and bullfighting in some countries, but we've failed to see that eating an omnivorous diet, hunting, fishing, rodeos and other forms of animal exploitation are equally immoral because they cause the same unnecessary suffering and death.
Being vegan is not unhealthy, extreme or unholy. Being vegan is very healthy, stems from the conservative idea that we should not cause unnecessary harm to animals, and is in perfect harmony with the teachings of the Judeo-Christian God.
Consider this: Go Vegan, it’s not hard. Or try being vegan: a week, two, or three! Ask us how, really!
I am happy and eager to consider alternative opinions, philosophies, etc; especially in light of the request prefacing this post. I do not view veganism as an impenetrable fortress of moral superiority. It is merely the best course of action that I could take to live my ethics.
12 comments:
Max - I find your explanation of your philosophical motivations quite fascinating, so I'm glad you overcame your wariness to describe them here. I made a conscious effort to read your post without feeling defensive about my own opinions and habits, and instead just tried to see where you are coming from, which was extremely enlightening. Thanks!
Max, I wrote on my blog in response to this post. I'm completely kidding. Elizabeth read my latest post and asked if it was in response to this, but I just now read this, and the situation made me laugh.
Dog fighting and people who eat meat and dairy are in the same league?
Come on!
Sharing beliefs is legit - specious comparisons don't inspire confidence though.
grannybabs,
I agree that dog fighters and omnivores are, in at least some sense, in a different league. Dog fights are illegal, there is a literal difference in the two activities and I see dog fighters making a conscious decision to do what society has esteemed to be wrong. Tradition may be strong enough that an omnivore may never question whether or not he or she needs to eat any given animal product, making it more of an extension of the culinary ethics of the previous generation in which veganism may or may not have been a realistic option. For example, I doubt my grandfather believes that veganism is a healthy diet. Even if he did, I doubt he would part from his eighty year habit of eating salt pork and fried catfish. I myself must be narrow-minded about some subjects due to my unavoidably ethnocentric upbringing. But this is hardly an excuse and I can only do my best to see things as they are.
The object of the post was to show that there are no longer any apparent justifications to be omnivorous after analyzing the root of why we consider dog fighting to be wrong (unless you feel the primary reason for its illegality is to prevent unregulated gambling). Dog fighting and eating meat & dairy are essentially the same in that they cause unnecessary suffering and death for human enjoyment. I do not see this comparison as far fetched, specious or problematic.
I don't doubt that I have failed to inspire confidence. I realize people don't like to consider ideas that instantly put them "in the wrong." Perhaps, strategically, there may have been a better way to present this information bit by bit, slowly acclimating readers to this conclusion. But, I was neither intelligent nor calculating enough to realize this before posting. I have tried to avoid being "in your face" as much as possible.
Of course, your premise is that omnivores have somehow lost their basis for being legit.
I would submit that a skilled debater could put veganism on the defensive somehow. (Cotton could be thrown out of the mix if you're not careful - then what would we wear - or maybe you do wear wool and leather, you just don't eat meat.)
I still hold to the idea of moderation. I have actually had experience with individuals who were vegans who put their health at risk because somehow they didn't have the skill or wherewithall to implement an adequately planned diet.
I teach in the public schools - and I see kids and families who can't even eat correctly as omnivores (and you have to admit that there are plenty of very healthy ominvores out there) so I am loathe to advocate an even more difficult choice for the "masses."
And elitism in any form never sets well with me, and those who defend veganism often come across as "elitists" to me.
You don't convert except by "patience, long suffering, meekness" as far as I've seen in my many years on this earth.
But don't worry, if you come to our house to eat, there will be plenty of choices - that's my eating style.
dear grannybabs,
A skilled debater can put almost any idea "on the defensive," but I'm not sure what that accomplishes. If a skilled debater were able to present compelling arguments that "trumped" arguments in favor of veganism, I would gladly accept them. My objective is to find truth and adjust my lifestyle accordingly, not be vegan for veganism's sake. I am seeking out other opinions and arguments; that is one of the reasons for this post. But, until now, I have found no compelling reason to not be vegan. If you have any, please share.
I don't understand the relevance of "throw(ing) cotton out of the mix." I can't base my lifestyle on a hypothetical situation. Until cotton and other fibrous plants become extinct I will continue to abstain from purchasing leather, wool and silk.
A healthy, well-planned vegan diet is no more difficult to follow than a healthy, well-planned omnivorous diet. Those individuals who don't eat healthily as omnivores need to make just as much of an adjustment to be truly healthy omnivores as they would to be healthy vegans. I have yet to see a thoroughly healthy omnivore or vegetarian become less healthy as a result of putting the same effort into a vegan diet.
As far as your perception of "elitism" I can do little, since it is your perception. This term is often used to marginalize vegans. I know little about you, except that since you are Hannah's mom you are probably Mormon. Certainly Mormon religious beliefs have been described as elitist due to its claims: only true church, source of priesthood authority etc. I do not perceive myself to be elitist just as I imagine you do not perceive to yourself to be elitist, considering elitism "never sets well with [you]." I make no effort to exclude people from my beliefs or anything else I have to offer. In fact, I want to be inviting as possible and I strive to do so with "patience, long suffering and meekness."
hi max. i just wrote an entry about vicks, then came to your diary and saw you had as well. though a much longer one. is grannybabs your grandma?
nope chris, she's waffle hannah's mom. i think.
This probably wasn't the most inviting premise for veganism. Since conversion strategy obviously wasn't my primary motive, I've tried to consider my reasons for this post, besides Michael Vick being in the news. I've reached two conclusions: 1) I would like to have open discussion about this topic with friends/family; and 2) I believe that I was, at least somewhat, seeking validation for a solid moral argument. I'm not vegan to be cool, or extreme or uber-liberal. I suppose I had subconsciously hoped that people would either give me good reasons to be an omnivore or respect the foundation of my convictions, even if they chose not to entertain the prospect of becoming vegan. I have not tried to offend anyone and I'm sorry if someone has been offended, not by my beliefs but by my manner of describing them. The invitation for open discussion is still open.
"Men must become harmless before the brute creation, and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the suckling child can play with the serpent in safety." Joseph Smith (TPJS; p. 71)
at least the dogs have a fighting chance, there is no hope for the animals in the meat industry
max, my friend. i eat meat but i loved this post. you make me want to be vegan. maybe i just have to do it. i think i'll be able to give up meat but the hard part will come when i have to give up dogfighting.
Post a Comment