Animal Rights, My Wrongs

When I contemplate the suffering involved in animal food production, as shown by Paul McCartney in the film below,  I feel great remorse for having spent about 14 years of my adult life in a paleo haze, devoted to the dark practice of eating and promoting the eating of animals. I consider my choice particularly irresponsible since I knew a more enlightened path.  

Although I started college (more than 30 years ago) on a pre-medical track, I did not feel I had found the my path until I started studying philosophy.  Philosophy consists of pursuit of meta-knowledge, i.e. knowledge of the nature and limits of knowledge systems, and an investigation of the general features of experience.  Philosophy includes aesthetics, which investigates how we know and identify beauty; logic, which investigates the nature of sound reasoning; epistemology, which investigates the nature of knowledge (how do we know that we say we know?); ethics, which investigates the nature of good or benevolence; and metaphysics, which investigates the most general and universal features of the world, such as time, space, and causality (whereas the sciences investigate the features and behavior of phenomena occurring in time and space).   .

Although I studied all the major philosophers of West and East, I chose to specialize in Asian philosophy, particularly Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta (the pinnacle of Hindu thought), and Taoism, because they rejected mere speculation in favor of practical experimentation to awaken awareness, relieve suffering and bring humans to full florescence of their latent powers, and in so doing had come to a scientific understanding of reality and the human mind centuries in advance of the mainstream of Western culture. 

The ethics of Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and Taoism emphasize the principle of non-violence (Sansrkit: ahimsa).  The leading exponents of these systems maintain that because all sentient beings have equal capacity to feel and desire to avoid pain and suffering, all have an intrinsic value and right to life and liberty, and none exist to serve human desires.   The first precept of Buddhist ethics is “Cherish all life,”  human or not.  The Taoist classic of Lieh-tzu includes this teaching story:

“Once a man held a huge banquet with a thousand guests.  When someone presented a gift of fish and fowl, the host said appreciatively, ‘Heaven is generous to the people indeed, planting cereals and creating fish and fowl for our use.’  The huge crowd of guests echoed this sentiment.” 

“A youth about twelve years old, however, who had been sitting in the most remote corner of the banquet hall, now came forward and said to the host,  “It is not as you say, sir.  All beings in the universe are living creatures on a par with us.  No species is higher or lower in rank than another, it’s just that they control each other by differences in their intelligences and power; they eat each other, but that does not mean they were produced for each other.  People take what they can eat and eat it, but does that mean that heaven produced that for people?  If so, then since mosquitos bite skin and tigers and wolves eat flesh, does that not mean that heaven made humans for the mosquitos and created [human] flesh for tigers and wolves?” [Emphasis added]

Lieh-tzu (Translated by Thomas Cleary, in Vitality, Energy, Spirit: A Taoist Sourcebook)

This passage rejecting an anthropocentric view of nature predates Darwin by centuries.

Asian philosophers universally accept the idea that every action has a consequence of quality similar to the action––simply, like causes like; as ye sow, so shall ye reap; or, in modern Western parlance, what goes around, comes around––as a basic law of action (Sanskrit: karma) and reaction, or cause and effect.  Thus, actions that arise from ignorance (darkness), carelessness, hatred, and cruelty, which create suffering, will cause darkness and suffering to grow in the life of one who performs them; and actions arising from wisdom, compassion, and mindfulness, which relieve suffering, will cause enlightenment and happiness to grow in the life of one who performs them.
 

Based on the understanding that all sentient beings desire and value life and liberty, and that infringing upon the life and liberty of others inevitably brings suffering to oneself,  Buddhist, Taoist, Jainist, and Vedantist sages have promoted animal rights and vegetarian diets for millennia.  When I first adopted a vegetarian diet in my 20s, it was primarily because I saw the truth of this reasoning.

Some of the prominent philosophers of the West had the same moral insight. 

This insight did not escape distinguished British philosopher Jeremy Bentham who wrote the following in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ch. XVII:

    "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

Discrimination against animals based on common differences between humans and animals fails as a guideline because there are humans that lack some of the distinctive characteristics that supposedly make humans more worthy of respect than other animals.  For example, infants, mutes, and some demented humans lack speech, and infants and some mentally impaired individuals have less reasoning ability than healthy cows, chickens, or pigs.

If any one maintains that it is morally acceptable to enslave or kill any non-human animal for the purpose of running experiments or harvesting body parts because that animal doesn’t have some characteristic of healthy adult humans, like reason or speech, then this person must also deem it morally acceptable to intentionally enslave and kill any human being who lacks reason or speech, such as a mentally impaired mute child, or elderly people with advanced Alzheimer’s disease, for the purpose of running experiments or harvesting body parts.  Conversely, if you accept that it is morally wrong to enslave or kill any mentally impaired or mute human for the purpose of running experiments or harvesting body parts, then you logically must also accept that it is morally wrong to enslave or kill any other animal for the purpose of running experiments or harvesting body parts.

Further, this perspective fails to justify treating dogs and cats differently from cows, pigs, and chickens.  Dogs and cats lack some of the unique characteristics of humans, yet many people believe it is wrong to use dogs and cats for experiments or food.  Why eat chickens but not dogs? Why the favoritism?  What makes one species more deserving of respect than another?

The Philosophical Basis of Animal Rights

In his essay The Animal Rights Position, distinguished American philosopher Tom Regan writes:

“The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is.”

“That life includes a variety of biological, individual, and social needs. The satisfaction of these needs is a source of pleasure, their frustration or abuse, a source of pain. In these fundamental ways the nonhuman animals in labs and on farms , for example, are the same as human beings. And so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them, and with one another, must acknowledge the same fundamental moral principles.

“At its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value of the individual. The moral worth of any human being is not to be measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interests of other human beings. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor their independent value is to violate that most basic of human rights: the right of each person to be treated with respect.

“The philosophy of animal rights demands only that logic be respected. For any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human beings implies that other animals have this same value, and have it equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans to be treated with respect also implies that these other animals have this same right, and have it equally, too.

“It is true, therefore, that women do not exist to serve men, Blacks to serve whites, the poor to serve the rich, or the weak to serve the strong. The philosophy of animal rights not only accepts these truths, it insists upon and justifies them. But this philosophy goes further. By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us.

“Once this truth is acknowledged, it is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional” animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping, but the total eradication of these barbarous practices.

“For when an injustice is absolute, one must oppose it absolutely. It was not “reformed” slavery that justice demanded, not “reformed” child labor, not “reformed” subjugation of women. In each of these cases, abolition was the only moral answer. Merely to reform absolute injustice is to prolong injustice.”

In his essay “But for the Sake of some Little Mouthful of Flesh…”  Regan explains why none of the differences between humans and other species can morally justify our using those species as mere tools to satisfy our  desires:

“Whatever one’s religious beliefs, each of us can agree on a number of plain facts. Humans belong to one biological species (Homo sapiens); all other animals belong to other biological species. Perhaps it will be suggested that this is why killing humans is, while killing “food animals” is not, wrong.

“No thoughtful person will accept this response. As a piece of logic it is indistinguishable from defenses of the worst human prejudices. Consider the racist: “Only members of my race really count; people who belong to other races aren’t our equals.” And the sexist: “Only members of my sex really count; others really aren’t our equals.” Both prejudices rest on the same error. Both take some biological fact (one’s race or sex) and make that fact the basis of moral preeminence. but no members of a given race are better than another just because they belong to that race, and no members of a given sex are better just because of the sex they are. Biological facts (race and sex, for example) are not the foundation of morality.

“This is no less true of species membership than of other kinds of biological classifications. We humans are not morally preeminent just because we belong to the species Homo sapiens. People who believe that we are preeminent for this reason are called “speciesists.” Speciesists purvey as much truth as racists and sexists. A speciesist can justify slaughtering animals at least as much as a white racist can justify lynching blacks.”

Despite having been enlightened by these philosophers, thus having an ethical foundation for meat-free eating, and knowing meat is not nutritionally necessary, I fell back into believing that humans need to eat other animals to meet our nutritional needs.  Why?

The Trap

I have previously written that during the last few of about 12 years of eating a vegan diet, I noticed some challenges with my health.  Some people have taken me to task on this point, because to them this admission means that I know that a vegan diet does not support good health, and that I will eventually give up on it again.

I have pondered this considerably and realized that three things adversely affected my vitality during that period. 

First,  as I believe I have mentioned elsewhere, I did not ensure that I was meeting my B12 requirements by consistently eating B12 fortified foods or taking supplements.  During that time I ran some nutrition analyses of some of my typical diet records, so I know that on many days I ate no vitamin B12, and that I did that for more than 3 years.  I mistakenly relied on daily intake fermented foods of highly variable B12 contents, and species of brown algae (sea vegetables like kelp) that I later learned only supplied analogues of B12.  I avoided B12 fortified foods, and erroneously believed that the B12 in supplements or fortified foods was 'unnatural.'  Hence, it seems likely that by the end of those years, I was somewhat B12 deficient (although I don't have blood work to prove it; I was barely making economic ends meet and didn't have a budget for blood work during those years).

Second, during the latter seven of those mostly vegan years I lived in Seattle, Washington, after having lived in northern Ohio and southern Michigan for more than 20 years prior.  Several years after I left Seattle, I had my first blood test for vitamin D and it showed I had inadequate levels.  Thus, I had inadequate sun exposure and, unbeknownst to me, was vitamin D deficient during most of the years that I was eating a vegan diet.

Third, during those years I also dealt with some of the most challenging events of my life, including getting married (which eventually ended), starting Chinese medical school, incurring a large debt, taking leave from Chinese medical school (due in part to financial difficulties), making several long-distance moves of residence, and barely making economic ends meet for more than five years running.

These types of events are well-known to place above-ordinary stress on a person and affect his/her health, and to cause or exacerbate problems with digestion, sleep, skin health, and immunity.

I wasn't suffering from a meat deficiency, I was suffering from an excess of stressful events, inadequate sun exposure and vitamin D, and probably inadequate B12. 

So why did I come to the conclusion that I needed to eat meat? 

In the years that I have adhered to a meat-free diet, I noticed that whenever I or any other vegetarian had any health challenge crop up,  non-vegetarians would automatically take this as an opportunity to suggest to the vegetarian that the problem arose from meat deficiency.  Non-vegetarians seem to generally assume that there must be some important nutrient provided only by meat, the lack of which makes vegetarians susceptible to the same problems that non-vegetarians get. 

The thought process seems to go something like this:  If a meat-eater experiences a period of fatigue or gets a series of respiratory viruses, it is simply because he got run down by life events or had contact with virus carriers; but if a vegetarian feels fatigued or gets a series of viral infections, its because his diet lacks some nutrient supplied by meat, and this has weakened his metabolism and immune system. 

The general social difficulty of maintaining a vegan diet in the U.S. also can leave a person eating a vegan diet with a steady source of doubt as about his/her choice.  When many people around you doubt the sanity or safety of your choice, few support it, some actually demean it, and most people react defensively or aggressively when you declare it, you have little support and much opposition to your choice, which tends to make the vegan doubt the healthfulness of his/her path.

In short, a vegan operates in an environment saturated with unconscious carnism, which is the dominant cultural ideology that maintains and constantly attempts to 'remind' everyone that eating the flesh of (some) animals is normal, natural, and necessary.  The vegan thus constantly receives the message that his/her choice is abnormal, unnatural, and nutritionally deficient.

It is hardly any surprise then that many people who attempt a vegan diet eventually give it up and adopt the dominant view that eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary.  This does not prove that eating meat truly is normal, natural, or necessary, any more than the fact that many otherwise rational Germans supported and participated in the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany proves that persecution of Jews is normal, natural, or necessary.  It only proves that most people will cave in to and justify the dominant ideology, even if it involves inflicting suffering on others, when they don't understand the process by which ideology shapes their perceptions and actions. 

Finally, any person attempting to follow a vegan diet in the midst of meat-eaters will also have to constantly dodge the pleasure trap.  As explained by evolutionary psychologist Doug Lisle in the video below, we are hard wired to seek as much pleasure as possible with the least effort possible. 

The nervous system constantly monitors the environment to increase energy intake (pleasure, gain) while minimizing energy expenditure (loss, pain). If the organism detects an odor or flavor that gives it pleasure, and the opportunity cost of obtaining the food is low, the body will naturally move toward that food.  If ingested, the system rewards the consumer with a sense of pleasure that reinforces the habit of consuming the food. The situation is the same as when someone tries a drug like cocaine, which delivers so much pleasure for so little effort that the individual might choose to forgo food in favor of cocaine.

Generally, animal products have a higher energy-density (due primarily to greater fat and lesser water content) and so deliver greater momentary pleasure than whole grains, beans, vegetables, and fruits. Animal products light up the pleasure center more than those whole, unrefined plant foods, and this can fool the consumer into believing that meat is good for health because it delivers more pleasure than boiled brown rice.

Thus the pleasure trap, carnism,  the social difficulty of eating a vegan diet, and frequent contact with non-vegetarians who blame the vegetarian’s every complaint on lack of some mysterious nutritional property of meat all conspire to sow doubt in the mind of even a very well-informed vegan and cause him to question his choice to avoid animal foods when he has no other explanation (such as stress or sunlight deprivation) for any challenges.

I was one of those well-informed individuals who got started questioning my choice to avoid animal products when some health care providers I consulted and books that I read suggested that people need to eat some meat in order to maintain health.   Knowing that my diet may not have had sufficient B12, irrationally committed to avoiding what at the time I wrongly thought were ‘artificial’ B12 supplements, not knowing I was vitamin D deficient, and ignoring the fact that I was run down by stress,  I decided that I needed to eat animal products.  Those products themselves provided the pleasure trap, and, drunk on blood,  I went from vegan to ovo-vegetarian to omnivore to Zone to paleo, and eventually, like any addict in a drug-induced haze, I developed sophisticated (but factually incorrect) arguments to justify eating flesh and used those arguments to push and encourage others to do the same. 

I feel much remorse for my part in promoting the slaughter of animals and by extension damage to the ecosystems on which we depend for life support.  More importantly, I feel remorse for following my head detached from my heart, which knew the better way.