On Banning Dog “Meat” and Vegans Who Eat Fish
I was thinking about the banning of the flesh of dogs for human consumption at the 112 Olympic restaurants for the games, and thinking that it was speciesist, as dog "meat" is being banned because Westerners value dogs more than other animals and find the practice of slaughtering them and ingesting their flesh to be quite offensive (and some Chinese agree).
I thought: What if there were a country-wide ban on using dogs as food, not just during the Olympics, but forever? Would some animal rights activists not support that ban because it’s speciesist? Would you support it? Would you think it’s an incremental step toward not using animals by ceasing to use this one animal as food? Would you support it but in no way think it’s an incremental step toward abolition? Does this ban during the Olympics mean anything?
I’m thinking about when I asked if not using chimps and orangutans in advertisements was a small increment of success, and I received a mixed response. (By the way I’m not saying the two situations are exactly analogous.) Is it always good to use animals less, no matter how that decreased usage came about or which animals we’re talking about? Elaine once commented that animals don’t care what we’re thinking, they care what we do.
And now for something completely different . . .
I got my haircut in an alternate universe on Saturday. My hairgal is a vegetarian, and there were several vegans in the salon and also someone who said: "I’m a vegan, but I eat fish. You know, I’m macrobiotic." Is that really how they describe themselves? The macrobiotic woman proceeded to ridicule the vegetarian for eating eggs and dairy and was happy to describe, at length, just how disgusting she thinks those products are, not to mention how unhealthy. The vegetarian responded with a cruelty argument, apparently unaware of the cruelty involved in dairy and eggs. The vegans looked shocked but said nothing. It was my first time at the salon and I didn’t say a word, other than that I’m a vegan because one of the vegans actually asked me–a person she’d never met before–if I was a vegan. Does something about my appearance scream vegan, I wonder? Truth be told, I probably looked amazed by the discussion and maybe my face gave me away.
If I wanted to contribute to the conversation I would have had to try pretty hard, as these women barely stopped to breathe. This was the first time I was in the center (physically) of banter like that, and here’s my experience, which won’t shock you (sorry for the let down): people are going to find a way to justify what they want to eat. And no matter how ridiculous their rationale may sound, they’re going to convince themselves that it’s legitimate.
Your commentary is right on and really enjoyed the insight. I've been vegan for over twenty years and have witnessed exactly what you describe. People will indeed justify eating anything in the most peculiar ways. Veganism is as rigid and straightforward in its meaning and living as the sun's positions in the sky. I'm appalled and amazed at the garbage people will spit out. One cannot be a vegan and consume anything that had to be murdered. My problem is; I don't understand how human animals brains work (or don't in this case). Great blog. I do some blogging on VeganWorld, is this a site for vegans you have visited? Blessings and enjoy a great week.
That was some hair cut Mary. You look completely different in your photo now!
RY
What do people understand to be the core meaning of "veganism"? Is it about not consuming or using any animal products at all? At this point scientific evidence suggests it is unlikely that insects are sentient (although the case is still open). If insects are not sentient, there would seem to be no ethical problem with using insect products (e.g., honey or silk). Is veganism about refraining from consuming or using items whose production has involved harm to sentient beings? But almost every product, "vegan" or not, has harm to humans or sentient non-humans somewhere in its past.
Should veganism be defined in terms of the attempt to refrain from using items whose production process requires immediate or foreseeable deliberate and easily avoidable harm to sentient beings?
Should veganism simply be defined as trying to do the least possible harm to animals — even if, given the number of animals killed in planting and harvesting crops, that should turn out (heaven forbid!) to involve allowing or requiring eating meat from grass-fed animals on marginally productive land? (One philosopher, Andy Lamey, has dubbed this the "burger vegan view".)
I would appreciate hearing people's opinions on this.
From my 8/5/08 blog post on this issue:
Even if this ban covered all of China, and was permanent rather than temporary, I would not support it. Anyone who considers themselves to be supportive of animal rights, who favors this measure, ought to stop and reconsider. In much the same way that banning capital punishment for white people would fuel racism and strengthen the concept of white supremacy, this ban does little other than to reinforce speciesism and the concept of dogs as “special”. It has no practical effect, as restaurant patrons who might have ordered dog flesh will most likely substitute some other species of animal on the menu. Nor does it represent incremental progress, as there is no intention of making the ban permanent, expanding it to other parts of China, or broadening it to include other animal species, milk, eggs, and other uses of animals. In this instance like so many others that abolitionists are critical of, the idea that eating animals is wrong, is not lost; it’s not even addressed.
I would see it as an incremental step and every animal not abused is good. Also, as I understand this dog meat "food" is obtained in a most horrific manner…. the dog flesh is said to be "better" if said animal was beaten before death. Sad to say, at least the miserable "livestock" animals are spared further torture by a quick bolt-gun to the head. I hate this subject.
Mary, I would understand if you deleted this part of my post as I may be raising some questions too delicate or complicated (or controversial?)
I am new to vegan…… and my belief was that "vegans" attempted a life that would "cause as little harm as possible" – Not supporting industries that exploited human and non-human animals is the most effective way to these values. But if these "values" are judged only by dietary choices…… then "vegan" is just that – "a diet" defined (and limited to) what one does (or does not ingest).
Vegans examine the fine print on labels looking for the "forbidden" ingredients – lest our money go to a flesh industry. There are the other issues as you mentioned – such as palm oil, insects, the use of animal waste and by-products on our veggie crops….. each of these has an argument of it's own.
But for now, I have these questions – what of the "vegan" who is at a social pizza gathering? He/she removes the offending dairy product….. left with the dough – is he/she not "vegan" if they eat the bread that has a trace of milk in it? Then…. how long would he/she have to go before becoming "vegan" again? Forums are full of "vegan confessions" – "I ate a granola bar with honey", or a dressing with "egg yolk" – "My cat is carnivore"…… and "should I kill fleas, roaches, flies, bacteria?". While all actions require close scrutiny – to an outsider (even "vegetarian") it makes "vegan" look somewhat ridiculous and definitely not feasible……
While I'd like to focus on the "meat" industry that does the most damage to
human/non-human animals – omnivores and vegan-opposition always bring in the
insects….. Or they ask us to account for the animal by-products in our cars, roads, homes, computers, etc. Sometimes it seems that they add these items into essentials – just to trip us up! But we are certain, all these additives have a replacement as simple as pleather is to leather.
This is the part where it gets most "touchy" – As you know I have rescued factory egg hens. They are well cared for, respected "pets". I feed as many eggs back to the girls as is healthy for them to eat…… I give away eggs by the dozens (along with vegan literature) to neighbors and friends – This at least keeps them from buying factory farmed eggs. Still, there are eggs that are "extra". Of course if they are not removed from the nests, they will rot….. Now, if I have lived as humbly as possible, avoiding all exploitation of animals as possible – If I one day decide to make an omelet…… from "a good egg" – am I no longer "vegan"?
I've have this on going discussion with my 3 time a year pescetarian husband -who does enjoy "the excrement" once or twice a week. While they are not "necessary" – are they "wrong"? The Keys have feral chickens and eggs may be "found" daily…. Under these circumstances: is non-exploited chicken egg eating is "okay"? Or simply because they are derived from an animal would the "vegan" police revoke "membership"? This is a difficult question as I tend to believe that it is the exploitation that is the crux – that is my "rationale".
For now I'm defending my choice not to eat eggs because they are not "vegan" –
Subsequently "vegan" becomes reduced to: food choice – It's a "diet".
As for the issue of the ban on eating dogs, I agree with Ken. This seems very similar to the Great Ape Project to me. If there are people in this world who want to single out a species of animal to give preferred treatment to than I will be happy of any reduced harm that may result, but I couldn't bring myself to actively support such attitudes. It does create a great opportunity to get the vegan message out and discuss why we should not limit our rejection of exploitation to a given species.
Bea–
I think your dilemma is similar to the often asked question (at least of me): "If you found a dead chicken, that died of natural causes, would you eat it?" My answer to that is no, and my reasoning is that I don't consider chickens to be food. I wouldn't eat a dead human either! Of course we are living in a world where chickens and their menstrual excretions are considered food, and many of us have already been conditioned to think of them that way.
Another question often asked is if someone made friends with a 'wild' chicken who left eggs at their house would it be okay to eat them? My answer is, I wouldn't eat them… but I don't think there is a problem with doing it. There is clearly no exploitation going on and if they want to eat the eggs I can't really think of any good reason why they shouldn't. I feel the same way about your situation, you are not exploiting the chickens (at least not beyond what is necessary to fulfill our obligations to them) and if you want to eat the extra eggs I can't really think of a good argument against that. It wouldn't jeopardize your claim to veganism, which really isn't diet, even if some people want to focus on it in that way.
Bea's quote: "I give away eggs by the dozens (along with vegan literature) to neighbors and friends – This at least keeps them from buying factory farmed eggs. Still, there are eggs that are 'extra'."
There are many wild animals that would be happy to eat those eggs. At the sanctuary where I volunteered, wild crows loved to eat the eggs we left out for them. The dogs on the premises did too. Those eggs won't go to waste if you've got wild animals around.
I'm not a big fan of feeding wild animals. For the most part, I do believe that humans should intrude as little as possible in the lives of animals roaming freely, and that includes feeding them. However, I don't think giving them eggs that would otherwise go to waste is going to drastically upset the natural balance of the food chain.
Just a thought. 🙂
Oh goodness no! No "chickens" in anyone's diet please….. dead or murdered! I agree – I don't view flesh as food either. Although I have (nicely) encouraged a "compassionate" omnivore to troll for treats on the interstate -if they must have their "meat"….
Anyway, that's where "friendly eggs" come in – It is difficult to find exploitation or "harm". I might think the attempt to do so, would be "rationalizing" to the opposite end….. If there is some kind of damage or "wrong", it eludes me. This "wrong" must be near the apex-of-ethics that my moral mind fails to comprehend. So thank you for your serious thought. It has me helped to clarify my perspective.
Bea–
Any nonhuman that we own can not be characterized as free from exploitation, their very existence is testament to that. I'm sure you treat your companion animals in the most loving manner possible, but you own them and they have the right not to owned or controlled by anyone. What you are doing is important since we created these nonhuman lives we owe it to them to make their existence as pleasurable as possible, since letting them live free is not an option.
Saying that there is nothing wrong with keeping nonhumans –rescued or not– is very dangerous indeed! If that were true what would stop you from selling those left over eggs for a profit, after all there appears to be nothing "wrong" with what you are doing. What would be wrong then with allowing a few of the chickens to breed and increase the number of eggs you have to sell. I think you would agree that this is obviously exploitation, but the crux of the matter isn't in making a profit or letting the chickens breed it's in owning them in the first place.
JonBen….. Yes, I agree it's the "owning" them in the first place – that is the fault. Everything from there on….. can (and often does) go bad. And I've firmly concluded that making monetary profit from any living being is wrong. However, I am "selling" an idea with each egg. The idea that factory hens are wrong. Wrong for the birds and wrong for the human body – People get informed about what horrible things factory birds are fed and the multitude of pharmacuticals they are given. It has made some even re-think "meat" chickens…. So – I confess…. I am selling something indeed.
I'm sorry if I inferred that I saw "nothing wrong with keeping nonhumans". I'm guardian to two dogs and two cats….. I have conflict with "keeping" them as well. But, thus far we're in a world with "accidental pest animals". So, even if I disagree with "owning animals" in principle – the task to correct (or minimize) the ills of others takes precedent. For now….. they need us.
And the breeding or buying of chicks? Not a chance….. The place I get hay at sells "bittys" for about $1.75 each – Isn't that sad? I would never support any buying or selling of beings….. I realize they are not sneakers or i-pods or widgets…. to treat them as such would betray everything I believe in….. which begins with "owning them in the first place".