By extension, if John Doe receives great pleasure from torturing and killing other people, great material gain by taking their possessions afterward, and has no fear of punishment or other externalities, are his actions moral as well?

On another note, why are the feeling of plants less important than those of animals? Have we proven they feel less pain than people or animals when they are killed, dismembered, or have their children eaten?

And there are a few different reasons why I think being good to other people is good for me. Most people create more value than they consume; having more, happier, and better people around makes the world a better place. Reputation-building. Iterated prisoner’s-dilemma type arguments.

But really, the simplest, perhaps silliest, but most powerful is that I’m just wired that way. I like people, by and large; I like seeing them happy; and even when I don’t like someone, I generally like seeing him hurt even less. So I’m good to other people because it makes me happy. But I don’t seem to have the same sympathy for animals, and don’t really care if they’re hurt. You could tell me that this is bad, but then I’d ask you whom it’s bad for; I don’t think it’s bad for me.

As for me – vegetarian for 22 years, then transitioning to the vegan thing for the last 12 years – I am inspired by the growing awareness of our interconnectedness, not as a food chain, but as Divine Beings. (And yes, I am now growing into the next phase: eating only those things that ripen above ground, picked from a tree, plant, or vine so that I am not involved in killing of any kind. A wonder-full journey.)

As for the belief that we are born carnivores and as such should forever remain carnivores, or that, since some animals themselves are carnivores, we shouldn’t hold ourselves to a higher standard: one of my favorite quotes from the movie African Queen, as Kate Hepburn’s character responds to “nature” as the supposed guiding light for all eternity…

“Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”

Thanks again for the thoughtful post, Julian, and to those who have responded with the same degree of thoughtfulness.

P.S. I rescued an abused pit bull nearly eight years ago, and she’s also… vegan! Happily so, I might add, based on the way she chows down her meals, including veggie burgers and the occasional protein shake.

The quick issue here, given all the great conversation should be:

Going vegan is easy.

Going vegan is convenient.

Going vegan opens up new diet options and flavors.

Going vegan is more than a diet. (abuse of animals is not limited to just what we eat)

It’s heart breaking for us to discuss eating meat/animals products only if it is raised happily….or deemed by human’s to be “humane” or “local”. This kind of thought, is provokingly problematic, in that if animals are able to experience, and if we agree (or basically agree) on some level that this is the case, then the argument for their death/confinement for production of bodily secretions at our hands + for our purposes, consumption + taste makes a family farm a killing factory as is a factory farm.

My thoughts lead me to think almost any use of animals for our consumption or fashion is going to result in the same end….which is death or dismemberment based on our assignment of monetary or other meaningless (to us and the animal) value.

Remember, milk cow’s don’t live long and prosper. They are hamburgers, as soon as the farmenr wishes. They are 100% of the time kept artificially impregnated, (even on family farms), and their babies are used for veal, rennet, and calf skin shoes….even when raised as “happy meat”.

For fun:

Assume we’re not the only life in the universe, and assume our planet earth is inevitably inhabited in the future by beings who have a greater understanding of space, time, the universe, and communication etc…than humans do, perhaps even a greater understanding of ourselves than we can grasp….

Would we deem it appropriate or admissible for these “aliens” to imprison us for their stomach’s desires? Even if it were in a “humane” (AS CURRENTLY DEFINED BY US) form of servitude?

Would we say about our mothers and girlfriends who are imprisoned and continually artificially impregnated for their milk (albeit on in a “free range” neighborhood) – “Imprisonment is humane and acceptable given the greater sensibilities of our captors.”?

Would we say the same about their eventual murder for food once their milk production ceased to meet the aliens acceptable levels of volume?

…Apologies for the star trek example, and any “man centric” tendencies in this example, as, who’s to say we men wouldn’t be farmed for our prostates or something similarly disgusting….

Violence on a farm is in no way limited “factory farms”. My neighbors chickens, an organic meat/milk farm, a “humane” fur farm and/or any other farm for profit/animal food for us all involve immeasurable forms of oppression for our non human animal co-inhabitants of this tiny planet in a BIG universe…

Every farming situation today that I can think of or have seen or can imagine given our alien example would impose the same systems of violence for money/personal gain on it’s inhabitants as we impose on non human animals in ALL instances of “farming” today.
Farm Sanctuary just released a great report report, it’s worth the read…., although their summary is:

A critical look [at industrial, organic, free range, and "humane" farms as the subject of this study] shows that while some farm animals housed and handled under the tenets of a “certified” labeling scheme may suffer less than others, the degree to which their welfare has improved is still far from “humane.” And all animals exploited for meat, dairy or egg production – whether factory farmed or otherwise – meet the same cruel end at the slaughterhouse.

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/campaigns/truth_behind_labeling.html

I think, somewhere out there, is a possible interaction with other animals that is beneficial to us both, and to our planet, but I don’t think it has ever been or ever will be located on a farm.

The project of civilization implies that human culture goes to war with human nature in order to modify our behavior. As an example, if I take the pure evolutionary psychology position seriously, straight, no chaser, then my nature as a heterosexual male dictates that I attempt to impregnate as many women as possible. If I take Dawkins’ theory seriously, that I am merely a container for my genes and that my genes’ flourishing is the point of my existence, then my imperative is to spread my seed as widely as possible. But, of course, I live in the context of thousands of years of human civilization and human culture dictates that I direct my energies toward building a stable household (monogamous, in this particular flavor of civilization, but polyandrous or polygamous in other flavors) from which to participate fully in the political economy and raise children that are well-integrated into my community.

I am a vegetarian. That choice occurs within the cultural context of late 20th century and early 21st century America, where we have massive caloric and nutritional surpluses and a wide variety of world cuisine available to us. If I were living in contemporary Cuba or 19th century America, I would probably not be a vegetarian, as it would make little sense in those cultural contexts. But my position makes it possible for me to bring the suffering of animals into account and find it weighs more heavily than the minor inconveniences of being vegetarian. If giving up meat meant that I would have a very difficult time supplying my caloric and nutritional requirements, then the suffering of animals would probably not balance that out. Indeed, I still eat factory farmed dairy and eggs because I don’t have the money to regularly buy those foods from farmers who treat their animals properly and I am unwilling to go completely vegan. If and when my economic circumstances improve, then I would gladly buy only well-raised dairy and eggs. I can well imagine circumstances in which I would occasionally eat meat again if I could be assured that the animals I was eating had lived a good piggy or chickeny or goaty life instead of the hell they’re subjected to in factory farms. Vegetarianism, incidentally, is not just a luxury for us in the decadent West, as over 2500 years of Indian history demonstrate.

Each of our moral calculuses plays out against a shifting backdrop of cultural inheritance and expectation, economic circumstances, and genetic urge. The argument from human nature should not be disregarded, as we are rooted in that genetic inheritance, but our cultural inheritance powerfully modifies those base drives.

Does that really get you off the hook though? You’ve staked out a moral position, and then avoided what naturally follows from doing so. The issue of “I don’t want to be a scold to my non-vegetarian friends” shouldn’t be the issue, it should be “Why are you friends with non-vegetarians at all?” Because otherwise it sounds like you are saying that the rights of animals are outweighed by your friends’ right to not be annoyed by you; though this seems to put meat-eating on the level of jaywalking.

The problem is that most people’s vegetarianism is purported to be a moral position, yet it conveniently only covers actions that normally fall under lifestyle preferences. So isn’t vegetarianism really more like an aspiration, plus a symbolic renunciation of meat to convey just how sincere the aspiration is? And this is just a lifestyle choice.

I can see the logic of a kind of agnostic vegetarianism. It would say “I can’t know that eating meat is immoral, but nonetheless I wonder if it might be, so I choose not to eat meat.” I think this is a respectable position that is both moral-ish, and doesn’t entail bothering people.

You have eyes that point forward, teeth capable of tearing flesh, a brain that evolved to need fat and protein for proper development. While a few human cultures embrace vegetarianism, no traditional human culture is vegan. And I wouldn’t be too surprised if the children of vegans turn out to have cognitive deficits of various sorts.

We humans are omnivores. It’s the kind of animal we are, and those who reject that are at war with human nature.

I will add that I do think you can make an argument against killing and eating great apes, because those animals may have the cognitive capacity to deserve some moral consideration. I suppose some marine mammals may also qualify, though I suspect there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on there. And I think we ought to refrain from eating dogs and perhaps horses, because we have an evolutionary deal with them: they’re our slaves and we treat them as companions.

Pardon me; I have to go put my steak on.

Okay, Jadagul, I’ll bite. Ugh, no pun intended.

Anyway, please tell us why you care about people. (Do you mean the generic category “human being”, or do you have particular people in mind, or …?)