Promoting vegetarianism or veganism is a lousy way to reduce animal cruelty

[Stoid]

This is so simple I doubt I’ll get much debate.

First, you will never, ever, ever, ever EVER succeed in persuading everyone to give up eating animal products. So your quest is hopeless to begin with.

Second, even if you did, in some fantasy universe, acheive that goal, the only thing you would stop is the existence of the animals that people used to eat, since no one would be breeding them for food. We would not have a planet full of happy cows and chickens leading free lives.

Third, and most important: since you will never achieve the goal, focusing on convincing people to give up animal products is an incredibly bad strategy for encouraging more human methods of producing animal foods because the animal food producers don’t give a rat’s ass what vegans think about how they raise cows and pigs to sell to people who eat cows and pigs.

What they DO care very much about is pleasing their actual consumers. So the people who are in the best position to actually have an impact on how animals are raised for food are the people who eat those animals.

As a committed carnivore, my choice to buy from Producer A, who uses humane methods, over Producer B, who is cruel, will, if multiplied, matter to Producer B, because he wants me to buy his animal products. If I simply notify Producer A that I’ve given up meat because it’s mean, he’ll shrug his shoulders and keep doing what he’s doing.

So, if you care about the human treatment of animals raised for food, bail on the “go vegan” campaign and start reaching out to meat eaters to convince them to be more conscientious about the meat and animal products they buy and encourage them to communicate with animal prodcut producers about their preferences.

[Consensus]

But isn’t that the same as saying that atheist are not doing a good job at convincing theist to renounce their god? They are not in it to change other peoples minds, they are in it because of their own conviction.

[Telemark]

I’m not a vegan, or even a vegetarian, but your arguments are pretty poor, IMO.

@Stoid

First, you will never, ever, ever, ever EVER succeed in persuading everyone to give up eating animal products. So your quest is hopeless to begin with.

I’ve seen it happen, so this is a false assumption to start off with. Strike one.

Second, even if you did, in some fantasy universe, acheive that goal, the only thing you would stop is the existence of the animals that people used to eat, since no one would be breeding them for food. We would not have a planet full of happy cows and chickens leading free lives.

If that were the goal, you’d have a point. But I’ve never heard any vegetarian groups asking for that. Most say that the goal is to stop breeding and raising animals for slaughter. Strike two.

So, if you care about the human treatment of animals raised for food, bail on the “go vegan” campaign and start reaching out to meat eaters to convince them to be more conscientious about the meat and animal products they buy and encourage them to communicate with animal prodcut producers about their preferences.

I’ve seen campaigns that do just that. But that doesn’t have to be the only campaign. If you reduce the demand, fewer animals will be raised for food.

[Stoid]

@Telemark

I’m not a vegan, or even a vegetarian, but your arguments are pretty poor, IMO.

I’ve seen it happen, so this is a false assumption to start off with. Strike one.

You are confused, since I’m 100% certain that you have not seen it happen. (Note I said “persuading everyone”) Strike one.

If that were the goal, you’d have a point. But I’ve never heard any vegetarian groups asking for that. Most say that the goal is to stop breeding and raising animals for slaughter. Strike two.

I was prompted to this thread by a group advocating exactly that: (that being turning everyone vege/vegan to stop animal cruelty)

Working to end animal abuse since 1995, COK focuses on cruelty to animals in agriculture and promotes vegetarian eating as a way to build a kinder world for all of us, both human and nonhuman

So strike two.

I’ve seen campaigns that do just that. But that doesn’t have to be the only campaign. If you reduce the demand, fewer animals will be raised for food.

Which doesn’t actually reduce animal suffering except that it reduces the number of animals being born to suffer…it does zero to improve the lives of the animals which actually exist and actively suffer. So it’s kind of like saying that birth control reduces child abuse, which it probably does, if all you care about is lowering the actual number of children available to be abused - not much comfort to the ones having the misfortunate to be born to abusers.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Stoid

You are confused, since I’m 100% certain that you have not seen it happen. (Note I said “persuading everyone”) Strike one.

The problem is that your choice of pronoun renders the argument entirely irrelevant. So what if you can’t persuade everyone? Every person who stops eating meat reduces the demand for meat, which reduces the number of animals bred, raised, and killed for meat. If that’s the goal of the vegan, then they can easily meet the goal of reducing suffering.

I was prompted to this thread by a group advocating exactly that: (that being turning everyone vege/vegan to stop animal cruelty)

Another non-response, since you were talking about a planet full of happy cows and happy chickens. Care to link to COK’s advocacy of happy cows and happy chickens, as a goal that will be met by universal veganism?

Which doesn’t actually reduce animal suffering except that it reduces the number of animals being born to suffer…it does zero to improve the lives of the animals which actually exist and actively suffer. So it’s kind of like saying that birth control reduces child abuse, which it probably does, if all you care about is lowering the actual number of children available to be abused - not much comfort to the ones having the misfortunate to be born to abusers.

Okay, let’s make this comparison, but let’s say there were a class of children being raised specifically for the purpose of human sacrifice. If there were kids being raised under these circumstances, trying to stop their creation would be a wholly noble goal. If the analogy between eating meat and abusing children holds, then it’s still a good idea to try to persuade people to stop eating meat.

[Telemark]

@Stoid

You are confused, since I’m 100% certain that you have not seen it happen. (Note I said “persuading everyone”) Strike one.

OK, you’re hung up on the idea that it has to be universal to be effective? That’s not a very persuasive argument. Reducing the number of animals raised for slaughter seems to be a useful goal.

I was prompted to this thread by a group advocating exactly that: (that being turning everyone vege/vegan to stop animal cruelty)

I don’t see the original idea (chickens and cows roaming freely) in your link. Can you point to the specifics? And it doesn’t change my point that most vegan/vegetarian groups don’t promote that. I can find any whackjob idea supported by someone if I look hard enough, but it doesn’t make it mainstream.

Which doesn’t actually reduce animal suffering except that it reduces the number of animals being born to suffer…it does zero to improve the lives of the animals which actually exist and actively suffer. So it’s kind of like saying that birth control reduces child abuse, which it probably does, if all you care about is lowering the actual number of children available to be abused - not much comfort to the ones having the misfortunate to be born to abusers.

This also seems very disingenuous. Reducing the number of animals born into bad lives is a good by itself. It doesn’t mean you can’t work on both things at the same time.

[Chessic_Sense]

Why would I want to reduce animal cruelty? It’s not like it hurts me at all.

[Marley23]

@Stoid

First, you will never, ever, ever, ever EVER succeed in persuading everyone to give up eating animal products. So your quest is hopeless to begin with.

There’s no question that you’ll never see a planet where everybody’s a vegetarian or a vegan, but this is an absolutist argument and it doesn’t work.

Second, even if you did, in some fantasy universe, acheive that goal, the only thing you would stop is the existence of the animals that people used to eat, since no one would be breeding them for food. We would not have a planet full of happy cows and chickens leading free lives.

So what? These people aren’t committed to preserving the existence of chickens and cows for all time. They want to reduce animal cruelty. If that meant that tomorrow, people stopped eating or making things out of cows and chickens and the animals were allowed to live comfortable and died off in a few decades, then what’s the problem? In that imaginary scenario, the animals aren’t suffering.

since you will never achieve the goal, focusing on convincing people to give up animal products is an incredibly bad strategy for encouraging more human methods of producing animal foods because the animal food producers don’t give a rat’s ass what vegans think about how they raise cows and pigs to sell to people who eat cows and pigs.

What they DO care very much about is pleasing their actual consumers. So the people who are in the best position to actually have an impact on how animals are raised for food are the people who eat those animals.

So your contention is that if meat and poultry producers are losing business because people are concerned about inhumane conditions for animals, they won’t make any changes to regain that business? Are you sure about that? I’m a vegetarian to start with, so I wouldn’t expect them to care what I think - they lost me as a customer a while ago. But if they lose business or see their growth slow down and they believe that adopting more humane methods is worth it to them in terms of their bottom line, why won’t they make those changes? That’s not to say that you can’t also have a discussion with meat eaters about avoiding the worst offenders or making sure they know where their meat comes from and making changes that way.

[Sailboat]

The OP comes across as pretty angry – I’m not sure why. Are you angry at police for trying to stop murders even though they will never absolutely end murder? Are you angry at advocacy in general? What is the seed of this anger?

It’s further worth noting that the core dilemma you’re getting at is not new, not specific to animal issues. It is also currently the subject of intense discussion in vegan and vegetarian circles (usually referred to as the abolition vs welfare debate). To wit:

[ul][li]Whether it does more good to strive to eliminate a perceived evil[/li]
[li]Or to accept compromise with the doers of the evil to mitigate the extremity and make incremental improvements in the lives of the (perceived) victims[/ul][/li]
Your argument for that second approach makes one kind of sense – it will reduce suffering and is more likely to be implemented sooner.

Another approach is to apply that same two-pronged test to other moral evils involving the suffering of unwilling victims.

For example, with the slave trade, would you be an abolitionist arguing against human slavery, or would you advocate better treatment of the slaves while accepting their permanent bondage?

With Catholic child abuse scandals, do you advocate rigorously rooting out the abuse wherever it is found, or perhaps licensing the offenders who treat their child victims humanely? After all, we have not yet eliminated the practice and have no guarantee we ever will. There are dedicated perverts out there who don’t give a rat’s ass what non-perverts think, except for the chance of prosecution. Are prosecutors standing in the way of reforming the Church to permit more humane abuse?

Your argument in the OP is dangerously close to that argument.

Your counterargument would be that animals matter less than people. Legally, currently, that’s correct. In the past that would have been a rock-solid assumption. It probably still holds true for most people. But it does not hold true for some dedicated vegans. And it is an assumption, not a scientific fact, and it’s subject to change. Abolition or welfare aside, cultural expectations and laws to protect animals are slowly advancing in many places.

Are you indeed paving the way to a better future for all? Or is the anger underneath the OP reminiscent of the angry, defiant sneers of South Carolina’s planters in 1860? Some day history may have an opinion.
.

[Blaster_Master]

While I am a dedicated meat eater, I can’t agree with the arguments put forth by the OP. There’s nothing wrong with someone advocating for a position they believe in and wish would occur, it’s only a dumb thing to do if they have unrealistic goals. So, promoting some degree of vegetarianism to reduce animal cruelty isn’t dumb, but promoting it with the expectation of eliminating meat eating entirely is an unrealistic goal. Further, it’s ridiculous to suggest they should eat meat to reduce animal cruelty; instead, they can still not eat meat and hope to convince those who do to either consider stopping or cutting back or at least using animal product providers who treat their animals with in as ethical a way as possible.

As far as I’m concerned, the biggest condemnation of anti-meat eating is the idea that it somehow makes the world a better place. First of all, humans have evolved as eaters of meat naturally; to not eat meat is an unnatural thing. That doesn’t mean that it’s good or bad to do one or the other, but it is at least unnatural. Second, even if every person did stop eating meat, there’s still countless other animals out there that eat meat, so how much of an impact is it really. And, I don’t think it’s even consistent. Sure, we see an obvious difference between a cow and a piece of celery, but where do we draw the line. Is it on some arbitrary taxonomy? Is it at a level of sentience? Would most people advocating this be okay with eating, say, insects or even less sophisicated animals, putting aside any “icky” factor? Or what would be thought if some form of plant was discovered that exhibited some level of animal like behavior, would it matter how advanced it was or could we eat it no matter what?

I do believe we have an ethical obligation to minimize suffering, but since we can’t produce our own food, we HAVE to depend on consuming other forms of life to substantiate ourselves. There is a clear line on “us vs. not-us”, which is why there’s more or less a universal cultural ban against canibalism, but anything beyond that is just a level of how comfortable we are with how close a particular lifeform is to us before it creeps on that. I’d imagine that’s probably why primates and animals kept as pets are typically frowned upon as well.
I digressed, but I think my point is that there’s plenty of ways to attack the thought processes and methodologies of vegetarians, but I don’t think the argument put forth in the OP is a good one.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Blaster_Master

As far as I’m concerned, the biggest condemnation of anti-meat eating is the idea that it somehow makes the world a better place. First of all, humans have evolved as eaters of meat naturally; to not eat meat is an unnatural thing. That doesn’t mean that it’s good or bad to do one or the other, but it is at least unnatural.

So, forgive my bluntness, what? You acknowledge that whether it’s natural has no bearing on whether it’s good or bad; so what relevance does it have at all? (That’s if we set aside the fairly thorny question of what “natural” means; surely veganism is more natural than debating veganism on the Internet is).

Second, even if every person did stop eating meat, there’s still countless other animals out there that eat meat, so how much of an impact is it really.

If you stipulate that animal suffering is worth stopping, then it’s worth stopping. The starvation of millions of children around the world every year can’t be used to excuse a parent who slaps her child; she can’t say, “Even if I stopped slapping my child, there’s still countless other kids suffering.” If a particular, specific action is worth doing (or not doing), then that’s completely apart from any other actions that may happen concurrently.

And, I don’t think it’s even consistent. Sure, we see an obvious difference between a cow and a piece of celery, but where do we draw the line.

You may be suffering from the grains-of-sand-in-a-mound problem: if one grain of sand isn’t a mound, and if you add another grain of sand the first doesn’t become a mound, then there can never be a mound, or so the fallacy suggests. We may not be able to draw a bright line, with “rights” on one side and “no rights” on the other (if you think you can, be very careful where you put profoundly retarded orphaned human infants, compared to where you put adult chimpanzees), but that doesn’t invalidate judgments about particular cases.

I eat meat myself, but I do so despite having studied vegetarian arguments and despite recognizing that many of them are very strong arguments. If you want to discuss the issue, I think it’s worth studying what animal rights folks say. YOu could do a lot worse than starting here, with a website founded by probably the leading rigorous philosopher of animal rights, Tom Regan.

[Stoid]

@Sailboat

The OP comes across as pretty angry –

This is why the internet will never effectively replace human interaction. I can’t begin to imagine what in my OP struck you as such, but so not angry. Just think it’s a waste of energy and ineffective, and I very much dislike wasteful, ineffective actions taken towards goals that I support, in this case the goal of eliminating the suffering of animals raised for food.

For example, with the slave trade, would you be an abolitionist arguing against human slavery, or would you advocate better treatment of the slaves while accepting their permanent bondage?

Bad analogy: holding human beings in slavery is inherently inhumane.

With Catholic child abuse scandals, do you advocate rigorously rooting out the abuse wherever it is found, or perhaps licensing the offenders who treat their child victims humanely?

Sexually abusing children is inherently inhumane.

Your argument in the OP is dangerously close to that argument.

Miles away.
I agree wholeheartedly with Henry Beston, who said:

“We patronize the animals for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they are more finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other Nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time.”

Raising animals to be eaten is not inherently inhumane: we are predators, just like all other predators…except we are capable of being better than other animal predators, not by giving up predation, but by giving the prey animals we eat comfortable, decent lives and quick, low-stress deaths. Which is more than the “other Nations” do: they think nothing of eating the guts of a screaming, struggling baby while its mother watches helplessly, which is pretty fucking cruel.

Life eats life, there is nothing wrong with that (and actually a whole lot that’s very right with it…the cycle of life is an extraordinarily efficient and miraculous thing which is completely dependent on life eating life). Torturing the animals we raise to eat is extremely wrong. But the mere fact that we raise animals for food, that we do kill them and eat them is by itself a morally neutral act.

[Stoid]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If you stipulate that animal suffering is worth stopping, then it’s worth stopping. The starvation of millions of children around the world every year can’t be used to excuse a parent who slaps her child; she can’t say, “Even if I stopped slapping my child, there’s still countless other kids suffering.” If a particular, specific action is worth doing (or not doing), then that’s completely apart from any other actions that may happen concurrently.

Nothing should excuse anything else, but in terms of looking at giving up meat to “stop suffering” I don’t care a whit that fewer animals might be born to suffer, thereby lowering the aggregate amount of suffering. That’s a stupid goal, because it treats suffering like a measurable commodity or something. People actually consider the never-existing of a being which would, if it existed, otherwise be destined to suffer to be a “win” in the “less suffering” column? Does anyone really, truly, seriously feel that they have “reduced suffering” if only 10 million pigs are born to spend their lives lying in nasty little cages churning out more pigs instead of 20 million? Really?

[Marley23]

@Stoid

People actually consider the never-existing of a being which would, if it existed, otherwise be destined to suffer to be a “win” in the “less suffering” column? Does anyone really, truly, seriously feel that they have “reduced suffering” if only 10 million pigs are born to spend their lives lying in nasty little cages churning out more pigs instead of 20 million? Really?

Yes. I don’t know why you find this shocking. It seems pretty obvious to me that it’s better if fewer animals are suffering.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Stoid

This is why the internet will never effectively replace human interaction. I can’t begin to imagine what in my OP struck you as such, but so not angry.

Gee, maybe it had something to with all the CAPS and the repeating and the * italicized and underlined and bolded* emphasis you used repeatedly.

@Stoid

First, you will never, ever, ever, ever EVER succeed in persuading everyone to give up eating animal products.

@Stoid

Third, and most important: since you will never achieve the goal, focusing on convincing people to give up animal products is an incredibly bad strategy for encouraging more human methods of producing animal foods because the animal food producers don’t give a rat’s ass what vegans think about how they raise cows and pigs to sell to people who eat cows and pigs.

And maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with the way you just outright dismissed the ideals and/or goals you seem to have come here to argue against:

@Stoid

So your quest is hopeless to begin with.

[Sattua]

I’ve always thought that focusing on vegetarianism and veganism as a way to reduce animal cruelty is a lousy strategy because vegetarians and vegans still might eat the products of large-scale farming, which kills far more insects and rodents than the animal farming industry kills farmed animals. A person really concerned with reducing animal cruelty would support elimination of pesticides and inventions to clear out rabbits and rodents before fields are plowed (and also free-range conditions for farmed animals).

[Telemark]

@Stoid

Does anyone really, truly, seriously feel that they have “reduced suffering” if only 10 million pigs are born to spend their lives lying in nasty little cages churning out more pigs instead of 20 million? Really?

Yes, without a doubt. Not sure why you’re having a problem with this concept.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Stoid

Bad analogy: holding human beings in slavery is inherently inhumane.

Do you understand that animal rights philosophy claims that killing animals for food when it’s not necessary is inherently inhumane as well?

[Stoid]

@Marley23

Yes. I don’t know why you find this shocking. It seems pretty obvious to me that it’s better if fewer animals are suffering.

Except it’s not really that fewer animals are suffering, it’s just that fewer animals are existing.

If the ONLY option is to be alive and suffer or never be born at all, I support never being born. But that’s not the only option, and it’s really not even a realistic one.

So if energy is being spent that “reduces suffering” by reducing the number of pigs born because there’s a miniscule reduction in the number of pig-eaters when that same energy might have been spent in ways that lead the pig farmers to reduce the suffering of all the pigs that actually do exist, then I think the energy spent on the former is at the expense of the latter and it’s therefore a net bad.

[Sarahfeena]

@Stoid

This is why the internet will never effectively replace human interaction. I can’t begin to imagine what in my OP struck you as such, but so not angry. Just think it’s a waste of energy and ineffective, and I very much dislike wasteful, ineffective actions taken towards goals that I support, in this case the goal of eliminating the suffering of animals raised for food.
Bad analogy: holding human beings in slavery is inherently inhumane.

Sexually abusing children is inherently inhumane.

Miles away.
I agree wholeheartedly with Henry Beston, who said:

Raising animals to be eaten is not inherently inhumane: we are predators, just like all other predators…except we are capable of being better than other animal predators, not by giving up predation, but by giving the prey animals we eat comfortable, decent lives and quick, low-stress deaths. Which is more than the “other Nations” do: they think nothing of eating the guts of a screaming, struggling baby while its mother watches helplessly, which is pretty fucking cruel.

Life eats life, there is nothing wrong with that (and actually a whole lot that’s very right with it…the cycle of life is an extraordinarily efficient and miraculous thing which is completely dependent on life eating life). Torturing the animals we raise to eat is extremely wrong. But the mere fact that we raise animals for food, that we do kill them and eat them is by itself a morally neutral act.

You can’t use this as support for your argument, because this IS the argument. People who are ethical vegetarians or vegans believe that HUMANS eating other animals is an inherently immoral act. Figure out a way to convince them otherwise, and they may listen to the argument in your OP. If you can’t convince them otherwise, the argument in your OP is a non-starter.