I’ve been a vegetarian for nearly a year now, and it’s not been very easy. The first couple of months were probably the hardest: my body was adjusting to a new diet, and I’d had to go without some of the things I love (mainly KFC and Wine Gums). However, I stuck to it, and now I’m used to it. I still use meat analogues, but to increase my protein intake and to expand my meal choices, rather than because I can’t go x hours without that chickeny taste I used to love so much.

If you know me well, then you’re probably aware that I’m deeply interested in anarchist philosophy, and may know that my vegetarianism (and the subsequent animal rights views I hold that grew out of it) are deeply linked to my anarchist principles. If you’re not familiar with anarchy, apart from the political view of the abolition of government (to be replaced with a horizontal power structure as opposed to a vertical one, but that’s for another time) the other core mechanic is that there are no rules as such. Instead, you should have the right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.

Quite shortly after getting involved with anarchy, I started researching into animal rights. I realised that, just as the right to life is a basic right (as defined by the ‘one rule’ above) for humans, so it should be for animals as well. This crossed my mind whilst I was looking into the notion of sentience. Sentience is the ability for an organism to feel pleasure and pain, which is an example of a high-level awareness of one’s environment and senses. Basically, no animal (including a human) would like like getting stabbed with a rusty knife (well some humans do, but we’re talking generally here), so if we extend this courtesy onto other humans, why don’t we extend it to other animals? It may seem as if I’m stating the obvious here: after all, animals cry when they’re in pain, as do humans. Yet people are still perfectly willing to do things like this to animals (I’m sure most of you reading this are nice individuals, but look at the sheer number of tortured and abused animals rescued by the likes of the RSPCA every year).

Many people (including myself) base, or at least analyse, their ethics on the principle of empathy: putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. So you likely wouldn’t stab someone because you wouldn’t want someone to stab you. An animal may not be able to say “damn, that hurt” but it would definitely feel the pain in the same way you would, so at the very least we should not harm any sentient being (if only everyone thought this way). The same thing applies for the right to life: you wouldn’t like it if I killed you, so we don’t try to kill each other (generally, although wars still rage on, but that’s for a different essay). All animals exhibit a survival instinct: we generally do not want to die, and will do virtually anything to prevent it. Again, by the principle of empathy and by the fact of survival instinct, we should not kill other animals, because it’s not nice, and we know for a fact that it is not desired.

So we’ve now established that hurting and killing another sentient being is not a good thing to do, and yet people still do it. Why? Maybe we choose not to think about it, or at some lower hunter-gatherer/animal instinct level we subconsciously block out these thoughts to prevent ourselves from becoming empathic, to prevent the death of the individual organism or the species. But if this has meant something to you (and I hope it has), then think about what you’re doing and stop. And tell someone else. Tell everyone you know that they’re supporting the death of sentient beings, either through hunting or fishing or buying and eating meat, or even by inaction.

Here’s another way you can think about it, which interested me quite a lot as a scientist. Over millions of year, we have evolved into ‘more intelligent’ beings than others: we have a society, we have a language, we build cars, etc. and this is in clear contrast to the other species of animals on this planet. But, if we go about killing animals (many before they are old), we don’t know what they could be doing. If a sheep has just given birth to a lamb, with some genetic ‘abnormality’ (which is all evolution is, really) that makes it more intelligent than other sheep, or gives it some higher level form of consciousness that will eventually develop into some intelligence like that shared by Homo sapiens, then we have to let that lamb grow up and pass on its genes, and let its mind experience things so that its consciousness may evolve too. People say “animals aren’t intelligent, so it’s O.K. to kill them”, but by killing them you’re directly affecting that process! Your BLT could have been the world’s first talking pig, or a direct ancestor of him/her. Killing animals is not only a mean thing to do, but you’re also playing God with the future of another race.

“But we need to eat animals,” people say, “they’ve got a lot of important nutrients you can’t get from plants!” In fact, both the American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada say that any properly planned vegetarian or vegan diet is nutritionally complete throughout all stages of life. Providing you put a bit of thought into what you’re eating, you can get everything you need from your food without ever having to contribute to the suffering of an animal again. It’s quite ironic when people say things like this, with the growing problem of obesity, especially in the UK and USA. People are hooked on fast food, and most of their diet is very high in fats and salt; they’re probably already missing out on a large chunk of their nutrients. Going vegetarian has actually caused me to eat a lot healthier than before (although there’s always room for improvement, and exercise is an important factor in health as well), and evidence shows that on average vegetarians and vegans are healthier and live longer than meat-eaters.

A friend pointed out to me once that it is difficult to get some essential amino acids in a vegetarian diet, and argued that eating meat is necessary. Naturally this had me concerned, however I later discovered that this ‘protein combining’ theory is outdated, and has been discredited for some time. One true concern among vegetarians is vitamin B12, which is not found in reliable amounts in any plant sources. However, milk and eggs are both very high in B12, and vegan-suitable supplements are readily available. Many foods (especially breakfast cereals, soy milks, and yeast extracts like Marmite) are also fortified with B12, so it’s not really much of a worry. The only other commonly-cited concern is lack of omega-3 fatty acids, however walnuts, flaxseed, and olive oil are all very high in these and again, vegan-suitable supplements are available.

Another good argument for vegetarianism, especially if you’re concerned about environmental issues, is to prevent the further degradation of the environment. The livestock industry contributes massively to deforestation, pollution, and climate change, and results in massive overuse of resources such as oil and water. It’s already common knowledge that there is enough food and water for the whole world, and if everyone was vegetarian there would be even more. People complain about the rainforest being chopped down and donate their £5, yet the reason it’s been chopped down is so that companies can cheaply rear the beef they’re eating on their burger. Many more resources go into feeding animals for food than would go into the same amount of crops. In addition, vegetarianism is much more economic than an omnivorous diet on an individual basis: you could save quite a lot of money.

One final thing people point out to me is leather. I’m totally against the use of any product that requires the death of an animal, and I find it quite annoying when people say “but cows aren’t killed for leather, it’s a secondary product”. Actually many cows (and other animals) are killed for their leather as the primary product, as it is a commodity. Besides, even when it is a secondary product you are still supporting an industry that supports the killing of an animal, so leather is harmful. Many people are also completely unaware of the environmental impact of the leather production process: the process uses a lot of water, and the wastewater left over has dangerously high levels of chromium, as well as other toxic chemicals. Air pollution is also a serious factor, due to the use of ammonia and hydrogen sulphide. Commercial-level tanning is arguably one of the most polluting industries on the planet.

I’ve now pointed out quite a few reasons why we shouldn’t kill animals for food or other products (such as leather), but what about rights other than the right to life? Naturally this is a topic with many different views, and it’s very important to animal rights activists and rights scholars in general.

Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation (a key book in the animal rights movement), has one of the more interesting views: an act should be judged on how it affects the individuals involved, relative to their preferences. That is to say, an act can be deemed ‘good’ if it satisfies the preferences of all of those involved. In terms of this “preference utilitarianism” nothing is inherently good or bad, as each individual has their own preferences; only the resulting state of mind is good or bad, and this is dependent on what the individuals desire. Applied to animals, Singers says that animals do not necessarily need to be treated as strict equals, but deserve equal consideration of interest. All living organisms want to maximise pleasure and minimise pain, and this counts as a set of preferences. As we stated before, empathy and fairness show us that we should give equal consideration to others, and to animals as they are sentient beings too, so we can use preference utilitariansim as a rights framework.

Ultimately, the divide between the animal rights advocates and their opponents lies on the lack of a link between humans and animals. Because we cannot prove the intelligence of animals (or because animals are not as intelligent as us, as some may argue), it is very difficult to apply conventional ethical philosophies to the animal rights movement. A key critic is Carl Cohen, who argues that animals should not get the same rights as humans as they are unable to differentiate between their own rights and needs, and those of the general consensus.

This is evidently an important point, but it has numerous flaws. First of all, what about the domestication of animals? This surely shows that animals can learn to respect the ‘rules’ of the other species they live with. I’m not saying we should domesticate all animals, but I’m pointing it out as an example that the debate is much more complex than it seems. Furthermore, look at the intricate societies that insects such as bees, wasps, and ants have built up. They have concepts of rules and leaders, and if an animal can learn to respect other members of its species, surely it can learn to respect the wishes of members of other species. The argument has other flaws as well: Cohen cannot expect us to retract the rights of the mentally disabled.

At the very least, all animals deserve the right to life. There are numerous ethical frameworks that can be applied, and they all draw the same conclusion. Vegetarianism and veganism are also much better for the environment, and for yourself. There is no ethically-, environmentally-, or economically-sound reason for eating meat, it’s simply one of the most selfish and ignorant acts one can commit. Although the animal rights debate is a large and complicated one, that much is obvious.

From:  http://www.johnlpreston.co.uk.nyud.net/2010/04/17/i-eat-dinner-with-murderers-an-essay-on-vegetarianism-and-animal-ethics/