Take the Vow of Non-Violence?
Four dear friends, all of whom are not vegans or vegetarians, sent me a link to "Take the Vow of Non-Violence in My Thoughts, My Speech and My Actions." Deepak Chopra is involved in this project (they're on Team Chopra), so I knew there would be some kind of discussion about animals somewhere. I was deeply, deeply skeptical, though, and with good reason.
You're supposed to pass the information on to two friends, to create some kind of mass movement of people vowing to be non-violent. The only problem is that you can still kill sentient nonhumans or pay to have others do so for you, and consider yourself non-violent.
That's weird.
The last question on the question page is "Do I have to be a vegetarian to take the vow?" and the answer is no, with quite the cockamamie explanation:
In general, it is obvious that a vegetarian diet is healthier, it is better for ecology, and less violent on life as a whole. However, what is best for us as an individual cannot be dictated by general principles or statistics. You must do what you are emotionally and psychologically prepared to do. Childhood habits that are culturally ingrained can be difficult to break, and their impact cannot always be overridden by will power, nor from a health standpoint should they necessarily be overridden. Find the path that works best for you. Being a non-vegetarian should not prevent you from taking the vow.
Frankly, I'm not quite sure who would be considered violent, other than people who intentionally harm other human beings. Of course, there is a discussion brewing, including the obligatory comment about whether we loony vegetarians would ask a lion not to kill a gazelle. It's frustrating, to be sure.
But to begin a "movement" (which by the way you can donate to, as "Every donation makes a difference," though I'm not sure what kind of a difference), and wax on about "being the change" (yawn) without asking people to change their relationship to the earth and the sentient beings on it seems a bit, shall we say, light on substance.
I took the vow, alright. And then I commented that the vow is meaningless unless you put it into action, beginning with your next meal and your next shoe purchase.
Strange . . .
"However, what is best for us as an individual cannot be dictated by general principles or statistics. You must do what you are emotionally and psychologically prepared to do. Childhood habits that are culturally ingrained can be difficult to break, and their impact cannot always be overridden by will power, nor from a health standpoint should they necessarily be overridden."
It sounds to me like Chopra just offered an "out" for violence directed at humans, as well. Depending on one's socialization, racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, ableism, sizeism, etc. may all be excused by this paragraph. Let's say, for example, I was raised a spoiled rich girl in Manhattan, and as an adult I'm not "psychologically prepared" to do my own housework. I guess it's totally ok for me to hate on the domestic "help," then?
Deepak Chopra, most Buddhist writers, and most of the yoga crowd is so lost in the thick fog of moral and cultural relativity and so self-absorbed in an Eastern form of pseudo-Epicurean pampering that we’re better off trying to reach social conservatives with the message of nonviolence toward animals (“pseudo-Epicurean” because Epicurus did not care to pamper himself nearly to the degree that these people generally do; he was allegedly also a vegetarian)
The Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian message of nonviolence is excellent, but only when it is consistently applied. The pop-Buddhism and pop-Yoga of the West (including Chopra) is nothing more than a big, lucrative business selling self-obsessed feel-good psychology as it cherry-picks the most marketable aspects of Buddhist and Yogic philosophy and rationalizes its intentional blindness to the more substantive issues and rewards of self-discipline and genuine concern for others, those others including nonhuman beings. Indeed, self-discipline is generally shunned in this crowd as a ‘heavy’ Western notion that might interfere with the light, airy bliss of going with the flow of one’s whims and pre-existing habits. Is the whim or habit violent? No need to attempt anything as harsh on ourselves as changing our ways over time. Rationalize it away. Just say “it’s not right for me” and mindfully enjoy your grass-fed or cage-free corpse.
Actions speak much louder than words and “vows”. Forget the vow of self-deceitful positive affirmation. Acquire a backbone, a very slight degree of self-discipline, and go vegan.
I feel a blog post coming on in the next few months….
I left my comment too… and embedded "A Life Connected" video. I mean – what don't they get? Us, the earth… the animals? The *meat*?
It's so sad for the excuse-itarians. They want so to have a world of health, joy and peace yet refuse to give up a sausage.
Full disclosure: I am a long-time advocate of nonviolence, long-time Zen practitioner, and off-again, on-again vegetarian. Now, my comment:
I think Mary is trying to make something gray into something black-and-white. I agree that Chopra has left far too much room for violence in his apologetics, but the thorniness of the vegetarian moral case must also be acknowledged.
One can draw the violence/nonviolence line anywhere, after all. For example, one could argue that it is violent to extract food and other goods from animals even if you don't have to kill them to do so (milk, honey, etc.)–the vegan moral case.
Or, even further: that to be responsible for the death of any organism, such as tiny insects crawling on the ground is violence–the Jain moral case.
Why not take the next step: that to kill any living thing whatsoever, including plants, is violence? Wait, there's another step yet: why not define violence as imposing a change of form on anything whatsoever (such as turning water into steam, or rock into sand)?
It is VERY difficult, philosophically, to find a clear moral argument for drawing the line in one place or another. Deep Ecology tries to use the phrase "vital need" (meeting vital needs is moral (with sufficient reverence, etc), meeting non-vital needs is not). But this introduces a raft of moral problems and slippery slopes, too.
In short, we should remain humble about where and how we draw whatever line we draw. Just as in the abortion debate, there simply is no scientific answer about "when life begins" or "when violence begins." It's a judgment call.
For myself, returning to the spirit of full disclosure, I eat meat infrequently, and only when I know it was raised humanely (free range), organically (no hormones), and locally.
Welcome Parke,
I respectfully disagree that I am trying to make something gray into something black and white.
This post is in direct response to the fact that Chopra says we need not be vegetarians; I was not taking "the next step" here, but I am happy to.
To say that the vegan moral cause is that it is violent to extract food, such as milk and honey, even if you don't have to kill anyone to do so, isn't quite right. First, the animals are indeed killed, and next, it is the exploitation and domination and commoditization of them that is the core problem (and then other problems follow).
I am not a vegan who believes in humane farming. I don't think there is any way to take the life of a sentient nonhuman when you do not need to, such as for food or clothing (particularly in the developed world in 2009) and call it "humane." I recommend Humane Myth at http://www.humanemyth.org for more on that topic.
As for other organisms, my "vow" is to not include violence against sentient nonhumans, first and foremost. Although we can talk about consciousness and about different forms of violence all day, we do know, for certain, that the sentient nonhumans we like to call "food" suffer in the same ways we do and our "pet" dogs do. Would you do to your dog what is done to a free range cow, simply for a meal, when the nutritional components of that meal can easily be gotten without slaughter?
I too am a meditator (Zen and TM) and though I can have the philosophical arguments you speak of and do agree that there are gray areas and slippery slopes, the question of whether or not we should kill sentient nonhumans when we do not need to is simply not one of them.
Parke,
I agree with you that drawing lines can be problematic in any area of morality. I would also add that the more precise the line drawn, the more difficult are issues that arise, again, regardless of the area of morality. However, the difficulty of drawing precise lines should not deter us from exploring a less precise line of “minimum standards” or “moral baseline” that is (or should be) reasonable for the vast majority of people in society, even if it would require some significant positive changes in industrial agriculture.
We establish and philosophically defend such baselines regularly in society in the form of laws regarding such issues as murder, involuntary manslaughter, assault, declarations of war, and speed limits, even though these issues can be just as difficult to draw lines in as animal issues. We ought also to establish and philosophically defend such baselines regarding animals. Instead, we have a very morally relative (and wrong) “hands off” policy of even discussing line-drawing regarding animals, despite their overwhelming similarities to us in terms of the morally relevant characteristics: sentience and perceptual intelligence and awareness.
Given the morally relevant similarities and irrelevant differences between humans and other animals, and given that we are likely to find Jainism far too ascetic or practically impossible in our modern society, I suggest that veganism is the baseline we ought to promote and live by. Veganism is not the end point or the most we can do; rather, it is the least we can do.
Veganism is essentially refraining from contributing to the exploitation and intentional killing/slaughter of nonhuman beings. Preventing accidental and incidental human fatalities in traffic accidents and police action – even foreseen human deaths – is not required by laws prohibiting slavery and murder. In the same way, preventing accidental and incidental deaths in traffic accidents or harvesting crops – even foreseen deaths – is not required by veganism. We should certainly take appropriate measures to reduce such deaths, but again, veganism is merely a current minimum standard, not the end goal.
Choosing to consume animal products is a choice to partake in the exploitation and intentional slaughter of sentient beings. Given our wide variety of food choices today, we can easily choose not to partake in such exploitation. In many cases, such as this one, drawing lines can be very appropriate and adequately defended, especially when one acknowledges that the line drawn is only a first and minimum standard, not the final or the best standard.
For me, this issue highlights the issue of honesty in claims-making. Perhaps it would help if vegans were to acknowledge the killing and violence that occurs in the industrial production of plant foods? Pro-use countermovement supporters have recent taken to criticising vegans if they suggest that their own diet is "cruelty-free" as opposed to vegetarian or meat-based diets.
Clearly many vegan diets are not free of acts of killing and violence against nonhumans (we can quibble about the meaning of 'cruelty-free' and 'violence' in this context because intent is obviously an issue). My response to this is that we need MORE vegans so we can address systemic problems that cause nonhuman animal harm in the production of crops. It seems to me that meat-eating speciesists in charge of plant production is not good.
This is what makes the recent habit in animal advocacy of using the term vegetarian and vegan interchangeable (often express as "veg*n") so wrong. We should never back down from the claim that veganism is our baseline position. In the meantime, it may be advisable to admit to veganism's shortcomings when we consider largescale production of plant foods (and who among us grow everything they eat?).
RY
While I'm frustrated that people think they can eat animals and that's somehow not violent, I do like this part:
"Childhood habits that are culturally ingrained can be difficult to break, and their impact cannot always be overridden by will power"
I think that's important to understand. Both vegans and nonvegans need to recognize the fact that habits and beliefs developed in early childhood can be extremely difficult to overcome. For people who don't have a strong internal locus of control or people who aren't motivated by a desire for justice or morality, going vegan is extremely difficult. They simply can't 'turn their back' on social custom, even when horrified, disgusted, or literally sickened by it.
And so, ultimately, what's this mean? It means we ought to do more vegan advocacy targeted at people who are more open to change: college students, teens, and children.
Oh, and also, just asking the question about vegetarianism is good. It makes people realize that eating counts as a form of violence. Whenever the "debate" about veganism opens up, it's a net good because some people will (re)consider veganism as a result.
Thank you, Mary and Dan, for your thoughtful responses to my earlier comment.
I am especially impressed with the nuance in your comment, Dan, that "Veganism is not the end point or the most we can do; rather, it is the least we can do." That remark really challenges my current practice while not invoking the moral rigidity I hear, and was earlier reacting to, in Mary's remarks.
One difficulty I have with the moral hard-line is that it generally assumes that death is the worst thing that can happen to something (or someone) and inadequately acknowledges the natural cycle of life-and-death: that death enables life, and life entails death.
Of course, I do not mean something so crude as, "therefore we should be able to kill whatever or whomever we please."
What I do mean, however, is that it's not entirely clear to me that to move along the spectrum from meat-eating to vegetarianism to veganism to Jainism to never-killing-anything-whatsoeverism is ever and always moving toward the greater good. At some point, this progression leads to the absurd.
I agree that veganism is a good place to land (though I tend to land on vegetarianism), but I haven't encountered an ironclad reason why it wouldn't be better to land somewhere else, either.
My concern about using sentience as the defining element of what's OK to kill or not is that this metric is inherently anthrocentric: we much better understand human suffering than anything else, and we really don't know anything about, say, an aphid's suffering. Poor aphids, if it were to turn out that they feel their suffering even more acutely than we do. Think of all the organic/vegan gardeners feeding these sensitive creatures into the vicious clutches of the ladybugs!
I don't mean to be flippant, but only to point out a certain moral peril here, that if we hold too rigidly to one particular position we risk losing perspective on what is, after all, a vexingly paradoxical universe.
Elaine,
I think we need to get away from the false welfarist message that “going vegan is difficult”, much less ‘extremely difficult’. “Being vegan is difficult” has been the ignorant mantra of the ‘movement’ for 30 years now. The truth is that going vegan, per se, is merely a matter of learning some new things and isn’t difficult. In fact, like most learning, it can be a lot of fun. Staying vegan after one has learned the ropes is extremely easy. The only thing that can be difficult about going and staying vegan is some non-vegans, but if that’s solely what you mean, then it’s best to be clear: being vegan is easy; some people are difficult.
Incidentally, I agree with you about focusing on university students. They are usually intelligent, relatively open, not stifled and controlled as much by mom and dad, and don’t have family and job responsibilities. They are at an age when mom and dad’s ideas are more likely to be challenged. Focusing our efforts here can be especially productive. The one thing “Vegan” Outreach does right is to focus on universities in its leafleting; it’s just too bad the organization and their pamphlets are so new welfarist, seeing veganism as an optional “tool” to reduce suffering and explicitly rejecting veganism as any kind of baseline.
Parke,
On veganism versus vegetarianism, I hope you will check out my essay entitled “What Is Wrong With Vegetarianism?” The essay is intended more to inform than to provide a moral argument, although I do comment on the morality of *institution* of animal exploitation.
Here’s the link:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-wrong-with-vegetarianism.html
About death, it is not death per se, but intentional and unnecessary killing that the moral ‘hard-line’ objects to. Sentient nonhumans share our strong instinctual drive and desire for life and well-being. Also, although I would not reject the term “moral hard-line”, I think we sometimes forget how much we take a moral hard-line in areas where cultural prejudice has subsided, such as the institution of slavery or the subjugation of women. In the 18th century, due to the era’s cultural prejudices, to call for the abolition of slavery would have certainly been a “moral hard-line”. If the moral hard-line makes sense as a basic minimum standard, I have no problem embracing the moral hard-line.
About limits, I’m not promoting Jainism, and I agree with you that one can go too far in trying to avoid harm, ending up in a sort of ascetic cruelty inflicted on oneself. The basic idea is to avoid anthropocentrism and speciesism by including obviously-sentient animals in the moral community. When I talk about going beyond current-day veganism, I’m talking mainly about taking significant measures to reduce motor vehicle, harvester, and other accidental or incidental violence that animals endure and finding better, more peaceful ways of dealing with other human-nonhuman conflict in land use, etc, that doesn’t merely default to unquestioned human domination.
About sentience, it is actually using the criteria of species (i.e. being human or ape-like) or rationality, not sentience, that are anthropocentric. Most of us are pretty ‘hard-line’ about intentionally killing innocent humans. It’s anthropocentric and speciesist to drop the hard-line when it comes to beings who also desire well-being. Sentience as a criterion is inclusive of all nonhumans for who pain, pleasure, life, and death matter. Granted, as with all areas of morality, there are grey areas, such as insects (e.g. aphids), where we simply don’t know if or how sentient such beings are. However, we can be certain that animals with a central nervous system are highly sentient, and we can draw a minimum standard, or baseline, that recognizes those species with a central nervous system as the least we can recognize. Perhaps we’ll learn more about insects decades from now and perhaps consider related moral issues at that time and what, if anything should be done. For now, avoiding the exploitation and intentional slaughter of sentient animals is a good, solid, and reasonable baseline to embrace.
I think I'm a bit redundant at this point, but let me just say that when it comes to the flesh and secretions of other beings whom we know are sentient, there simply is no way to get those "products" without harm; harm is a necessary part of the process.
The UNintended harm caused to other beings whose sentience is not certain (or even whose sentience is certain) is by no means an insignificant matter, and I hope I didn't send a contrary message.
My point is simply that there are indeed grey areas and slippery slopes, however the intentional harm of sentient beings doesn't fall into either of those categories. I don't see how that makes me morally rigid.
I'm no pacifist, so maybe I have to admit that right at the top.
But this bothers me. I was raised to eat meat and exploit animals. Nobody in the world can say it was more ingrained in them, that it's more their culture, or that it's been harder for them to give up. Happy times in my family, like holidays or weekends were celebrated with meat at every meal. We had omlets with ham and cheese for breakfast, chicken or tuna salad for lunch, and steak for dinner. My church said it was ok, in fact church functions revolved around huge plates of meat and dairy. My family felt betrayed when I became vegan because they wanted me to share the food they were cooking. But they got over it.
To say that it's too ingrained is an excuse. It wasn't exactly easy for me to switch to a vegan lifestyle, but I did it because I wanted to stop hurting animals needlessly. That's the word, needless. If I accidentally hurt animals at some point in my life that's different from stuffing my face with big bloody pieces of their dead bodies at every meal because I'm too lazy and self centered to do anything else. I would avoid hurting animals but I don't see how the idea that a mouse might accidentally get ground up in a big batch of grain means it's ok to eat animals killed for no reason but going on my plate.
If somebody were to attack me, I'd fight back. I might fight to help someone else out too. But even I can see that all this violence toward animals is just unnecessary. And we do more violence to animals than we do to people, even though we do a lot of violence to people.
Pacifism is hard. Consider the implications of trying to find a peaceful response to someone breaking into your home and threatening your children. Ask yourself if pacifism can work in the face of genocide. Those are difficult questions. But if you live in the US and can buy tofu and greens and rice at your corner store, being vegan is an easy way to reduce the violence you cause in the world. It's not one of those questions you have to wrestle with but people still try to put it that way. They somehow compare the question of "would you use a taser on a man trying to attack a baby with a knife" to the question of "if you're hungry and driving to work should you stop at McDonalds for a big mac."
Thanks for that comment, Lyda. It reminded me of a very profound and true statement of John Stuart Mill: "It's not because of men's [sic] desires are strong that they act ill; it is because their consciences are weak."