VeganVanguard.com - Frequent Questions and Comments ___________________________________________

Frequent Questions and Comments

Do you have a question you’ve always wondered about when it comes to animal rights or veganism? Maybe, you’re an activist, vegetarian, or vegan and you always get asked the same questions by curious individuals. If so, send those questions in! Most of these questions didn’t come from visitors to this site. They came from conversations I have had with other people. However, most people I know have given up on trying to convert me or defend their lifestyle to me, and the truly curious are far and few between. Accordingly, I don’t receive many questions anymore. This is why I need your help; send me your questions today.

If you have an additional way to answer some of these questions, let me know. Other’s opinions are a great way to learn and will always be welcome. Thank you.

1. Eating / Killing Animals: 1a. Meat eating, hunting, etc. is a choice.; 1b. What about societies that depend upon animals for survival?; 1c. What about killing animals in self defense?
2. Human / Animal Comparisons: 2a. Aren’t we like lions and other predators?; 2b. But other animals kill each other for food every day?; 2c. Eating animals is alright because it is part of the "survival of the fittest."
3. Veganism / Vegetarianism: 3a. What do you wear if excluding animal products?; 3b. If you don’t eat animal products what do you eat?; 3c. Hitler was a vegetarian.
4. Animals in Agriculture: 4a. If the cows weren’t happy then they wouldn’t be able to give milk.; 4b. Maybe unhappy cows still produce milk but it’s not as much as if they were content.
5. Animal Concerns: 5a. Shouldn't you stop animals from killing one another?; 5b. But if animals weren’t raised for food they would not be born.; 5c. You are still responsible for killing because some farmers kill animals to protect their crops, which you buy for food.
6. Religon: 6a. God created humans superior to animals.; 6b. Christianity’s God gave humans dominion over animals.; 6c. We can treat animals how we wish because they don’t have a soul.
7. Hunting: 7a. Why is hunting wrong?; 7b. At least the animals have a chance to get away unlike livestock.; 7c. Hunters help animals because the money spent on permits, stamps, and licenses is used for conservation.; 7d. Many hunters help animals’ more than animal rights activists because they donate to conservation groups.; 7e. Guns are more humane than bows because the animals die more quickly.; 7f. We have caused a deer overpopulation problem so we need to hunt in order to control their numbers.; 7g. Hunting is an important tool to help regulate population levels.; 7h. Hunting is a cheap way to get food if you cannot afford to buy it.
8. Rights: 8a. Why not welfare instead of rights?
V. Various: v1. How do you know plants can’t feel pain?

1. Eating / Killing Animals

1a. Meat eating, hunting, etc. is a choice. If you don’t want to eat meat then I respect your choice. Similarly, you should respect my choice.

Any activity that subjects other sentient beings to the kinds of treatment and eventual death that we find inherent in the consumption of animal products cannot rightfully be a choice. While eating animal products is technically a choice allowed by society, it is not justly so. Animals are sentient beings, like humans, especially at a fundamental level (ability to experience pain and suffering). It is for this reason that we should understand how important this situation truly is. Unless we would grant that treating humans unjustly is a choice, then we must administer our actions equally. In short, eating animals is not a choice because it perpetrates harm towards other sentient beings.

1b. What about societies that depend upon animals for survival?

It may be here that there is an exception. If eating animals was the only means of survival it is plausible that such actions would be justified. However, these tribes usually consist of a very small number of people and effect very few animals.

Realize that I am not appealing to these tribes, but to the rest of the world. Also realize that we do not belong to one of these tribes. Therefore, justifying a tribe’s use of animals does nothing to secure us in our actions. Most people live in societies that could more than supply their nutritional needs without the use of animals and it is here that this appeal has value. Why must animals suffer and die for our dietary needs when those same needs could be compassionately satisfied elsewhere?

1c. What about killing animals in self defense?

As it is with killing humans, killing animals in self defense is justifiable. However, most of us will never be in this situation. As I mean it here, self defense is an instance where you are being attacked by a animal. Self defense is not pre-emptive killing such as when a mountain lion is spotted in a park, or proximity killing such as when a bear enters your camp to look for food. It must actually be in defense of yourself or others in order to prevent significant harm or death.

2. Human / Animal Comparison

2a. Aren’t we like lions and other predators? We’re all animals, if it’s alright for them to kill other animals why can’t we?

Some people choose to rationalize their behavior by stating they are animals just as a lion or some other predator. True, but we are also animals just as a cow, deer or some other herbivore and they do not consume meat. If we want to compare ourselves to animals which species do we choose? It is for this reason that the analogy between humans and meat eating cannot be rationalized as behavior of animals, because some animals do not eat meat.

Even if someone deems eating meat appropriate based on the behavior of other animals there is still a clear demarcation between the two. Unlike other animals (so far as we know) humans are able to conceive of the concept of morality. This is not to say that animals do not exhibit moral behavior because some, as in primates, do. However, it is unlikely that they have framed their morality in a structured way. Humans on the other hand are quite capable of this, if we choose we can stave off a variety of behavior, one of which could be killing and eating animals, based on what we think is appropriate.

Also, our level of intelligence calls us to a higher obligation than what does the intellect of other animals. Consider religion; various religious institutions call their members to establish behaviors and customs far beyond that of any other animal. Philosophy also has a pull in our lives which dictates such things as moral principles as well as some of the laws we follow. The knowledge of animal sentience and self-awareness is enough evidence for us to know that most animals suffer and feel pain; furthermore, we are aware that these animals know this pain is happening to them. It follows from this, that animals deserve, nay demand, the right to be free from such unnecessary suffering and pain. Our intelligence dictates this be so. Other animals, such as predators, have no such notion of any other creature’s suffering. It is because other animals lack this level of knowledge that they are not totally accountable for their actions.

It is also true that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. People often compare themselves with animals but in opposing ways. When asked why it is ok to kill animals they respond, “Because animals are different, they are not human” or “They are just animals.” All of these statements contrast humans from animals. Yet others respond comparatively, “Because humans are animals and other animals eat meat.” Something has run amuck, how can we eat animals because we are different from them and, at the same time, because we are like them?

Humans are animals this much is true all the more reason why we should understand that life is special and reserved for its possessor. (see also 1a, 2b)

2b. Isn’t it hypocritical to insist that humans shouldn’t eat other animals when animals kill each other for food every day?

Most humans can rationalize and distinguish between variables that, for as much as we can tell, other animals cannot. The position of ethical veganism and animal rights is founded on the realization that other animals can experience pain and suffering. Entities with this level of ability can be said to have an interest in not suffering by virtue of being able to experience it. Humans can visualize the terms that establish an entities interest or right pertaining to a particular matter, other animals cannot. For instance, an infant is not able to conceive of all that an adult can so we accordingly do not hold infants to the same standard of reasoning as we do adults. The same can be said of other animals. Because they do not possess the capacity to realize the existence of interests and/or rights they cannot be expected to abide by any moral code founded on these principles. (see also 1a, 2b)

2c. Eating animals is alright because it is part of the "survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest is slang for natural selection, one of the most misunderstood terms involving the principle of evolution. Natural selection is not when a hunter goes out and kills another creature, or when cows are raised to be killed for food. Rather, it is the genetic continuance of biological traits enabling a species to survive in a changing environment. A prime example can be seen in mosquitoes. People sought to control mosquito populations by spraying pesticides where they lived. Some mosquitoes were killed by the pesticide, but others were tolerant to the chemicals. As a result, only the mosquitoes that were immune to the pesticide survived to produce offspring, passing their genetic resistance to them. Eventually the majority of the mosquito population became immune to various types of pesticides.

For natural selection to occur a member of a species must have a genetic variance that allows it to prosper where other members of its species cannot. Second, this genetic variance must be propagated by breeding therefore passing on the variation enabling its offspring to survive as well. This does not happen in our animal food models.

In the wild, animals survive because they are the fastest, the most agile, the most adept at hiding, etc. However, no amount of evolution can overcome a hunter armed with a technologically advanced weapon or the machinery of a slaughterhouse kill floor. Eating animals then, for humans, does not qualify as natural selection.

3. Veganism

3a. What do you wear if excluding animal products?

That’s an easy one, virtually anything you like. It’s extremely simple to avoid buying clothes made with animal products. You can even have the look of leather (minus animal suffering) if desired. Most stores have faux leather clothing in a variety of styles and prices.

3b. If you don’t eat animal products what do you eat?

Ah, another scarcity question. This question and the one preceding is meant to reinforce in the mind of the petitioner that vegans live horrible lives limited in scope and variety. If they can determine that vegans have limited diet then in their minds we are miserable and this is reason enough for them to reject such a lifestyle.

However, when it comes to food there is an endless array of delicious options. I eat more of a variety now than before. I can’t possibly run through the gamete of available food options, but the internet is full of recipes that can be easily found. Personally, I have five or so sizeable cookbooks with recipes ranging from ethnic foods to down home favorites.

People often envision their normal meal without the carrion they normally eat. Try thinking outside the box when it comes to your meals. Carrion replacements are an easy transition, however many long time vegans rarely consume these.

3c. Hitler was a vegetarian.

There is a wealth of evidence that debunks this claim. I suggest you search for the key words “Hitler not vegetarian” and see what you come up with. However, let us assume what is known to be false; that Hitler was a vegetarian until the day he died. What good does it do towards understanding vegetarianism?

This claim is an attempt to link vegetarianism and immorality through the actions of someone who happens to embody both traits. This fails on at least two fronts. The first pertains to why someone is a vegetarian. One of the reasons to go vegetarian is for good health. Health driven vegetarians may not have any ethical reasons for their dietary choice. Therefore, it would be faulty to assume that morality or immorality is an intrinsic part of being a vegetarian.

Second, the action of one person does not necessarily represent the whole of any movement or group. Many catholic priests have been convicted of offenses regarding minors, but this does little to suggest that Catholicism embodies or causes such actions.

To drive these two points home let’s switch the scenario around. Did you know that Osama bin Laden¹, Ted Bundy, and Joseph Stalin² were omnivores? You know what that means don’t you? That’s right, absolutely nothing!

1 - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p01s02-wosc.html
2 - http://www.collectiblemeals.com/library.php

4. Animals In Agriculture

4a. If the cows weren’t happy then they wouldn’t be able to give milk.

First, cows don’t “give” milk to any entity other than their offspring; we take it from them. Second, I’m not sure where the notion that animals are happy to produce for humans sprang from, though I imagine it is derived from the things we are told and see as children. Consider for an instant the coloring books we give children showing picturesque farm scenes that exist no where but in our imaginations. It is, I think, a necessary denial of the treatment we bestow upon animals that allows us to continue in our current exploits guilt free. If we do not falsely hold that animals are happy to serve we are left with no excuse for their exploitation and must alter our actions accordingly. Therefore, we pretend.

If cows had to be happy to produce milk think of the precarious position this would create in nature. Imagine that a female cow is, for whatever reason, displeased. If being unhappy caused a cessation in lactation her offspring would soon starve and die.

On a dairy farm cows give birth at least once a year and the calf is immediately separated from its mother never to be seen again. It would stand to reason that this is a less than happy situation for the mother. Yet she does not stop producing milk. Even when her calf is no longer present she produces milk. Lactation is based on a biological necessity not emotion.

In the end, even if it were shown that cows were happy when they produced milk, to what would it avail? Cows lactate only when pregnant. Therefore they are kept pregnant for nearly all of their lives. Their babies are taken from them and either treated like their mothers or killed for the beef and veal industries. Dairy cows bodies become depleted and deformed by the stresses placed upon them. They are chemically controlled and fed improper diets consisting of substances like brewery waste products and chicken manure. Such a toll is exacted upon them that after a few years their bodies break down unable to keep pace with the ravenous demand of the milk industry and they are killed. This is quite a heavy price just to be able to pour a little “happy” milk on a bowl of cereal in the morning.

4b. Maybe unhappy cows still produce milk but it’s not as much as if they were content.

Even if this were the case, dairy farms have at their disposal an entire arsenal of hormone treatments aimed at pushing the lactation processes farther than what naturally occurs. So even if cows are more productive when happy, which biologically they are not, dairy farms are no more inclined to keep their cows content when hormones can produce the same results with just the slip of a syringe.

5. Animal Concerns

5a. What about other animals such as lions? Shouldn’t you stop them from killing other animals?

No, the physiology of carnivores dictates that meat is an essential aspect of their diet; they are not equipped to digest high levels of plant matter. In this instance, killing for other animals (carnivores) is necessary.

Also, nothing in the animal rights position is against all forms of killing when it comes to animals, just those that unnecessarily deny the interests of other creatures, such as humans eating animals when they could easily consume other foods. (see also 2a, 2b)

5b. But if animals weren’t raised for food they would not be born.

To be blunt; so what! What good is a life born as a commodity? Animals raised as food seldom know their mother. They are treated with disdain and face abuse and neglect in their daily lives. The only release from this cycle of torment is their eventual slaughter (save for the few that are rescued by concerned individuals). It is true that if the animal rights position prevailed less of these animals would be born, but that is very much the point.

Such a question confuses the issue. A question as this tries to insinuate that the animal rights position wants to rid the world of the lives living today. In fact, it does not; rather the emphasis is on preventing future animals from being subjected to pain and suffering. Even if the animal rights position were to triumph tomorrow, the main concern would be population control not extermination. Animals present when the animal rights position prevails will undoubtedly be allowed to live out their lives in lush roomy sanctuaries, free to carry out natural behavior, many, for the first time in their lives.

5c. You are responsible for killing when you buy food from farmers who kill animals to protect their crops.

Sure, some crop farmers probably kill animals, but this is something that is not a necessity to providing the final product. For instance, a strawberry farmer may choose to shoot a deer if she frequents his property. He may do this to protect his crop, but it was not necessary for there are other non-lethal deterrent methods.

On the other hand, there is no alternative for obtaining animal flesh. For this activity, it is directly necessary for a animal to be killed. So while buying food from plants does not necessitate killing, the same cannot be said for buying animal products.

Also, responsibility in this instance cannot be established. What if our strawberry farmer unbeknownst to us is a serial killer, animal abuser, or child molester? Does this mean that we as consumers support this type of behavior by purchasing a product provided by this farmer? Are we responsible for his actions? I think it readily apparent that we would not be. The situation would be markedly different if we purchased his products after reading a label saying, “Proceeds from this product are used to molest children.” Knowledge of such intent establishes direct responsibility on the part of the consumer, because now you must decide whether to purchase a product that will provide a means to the end.

Let’s shift to a different example. I buy some of my favorite food, later I read a statement from the manufacturer stating they have decided to give some money to a research organization. Before long, this research organization ends up providing a cure for cancer. Do I now get to say that I donated money to the researchers in support of their cause? Again the answer is no, because I had no knowledge of where my money would go prior to purchasing my favorite food. Furthermore, the charitable decision was not mine to make, nor was it necessarily linked to buying the box of food. Again, had I known what my money was being used for; then I could have claimed some responsibility for my action. As it is now, no responsibility can be established in the absence of knowledge.

6. Religion

6a. God created humans superior to animals.

Possibly, but for those who don’t believe in the existence of Gods such a statement is vacuous. Also, religion and the belief in Gods have been used to support other claims of superiority which are now obsolete. Already people are working an animal ethics approach into their various religious dogmas. Some religions already embrace a vegetarian diet and believe that animals have a soul. For the individuals of these orientations such a statement of superiority is incorrect.

Even if humans are superior, to what end does that lead us? Animals can still experience pain and suffering. In our own lives we can relate to the ends we will go to avoid these experiences. We also know that we are unjust when we inflict unnecessary suffering onto another. And so it is, that entities able to experience pain and suffering ought to be free from those experiences. This much is our obligation. Superiority is neither here nor there.

6b. Christianity’s God gave humans dominion over animals.

Even if a person accepts such a vast number of premises that lead up to God and the granting of “dominion” over animals, there is still a question of what dominion means. It is surely obvious what the word itself means but many theologians have suggested that such a translation of biblical text is incorrect, and that the proper meaning was one of stewardship. If this is true, as it very well could be as stewardship is mentioned numerous times throughout the bible, then granted dominion is no longer relevant. The position from stewardship does not lead any steward (human) to act towards animals in the way they are currently treated.

Second, if God did declare that humans should have dominion over animals why then would he allow them to feel pain and emotion, furthermore why would he create lives just so others could destroy them. Would a loving and compassionate God give unto animals the sensory perception of pain, the emotional capacity of joy, bereavement, and suffering just to allow them the torment of experiencing anguish and pain? We would hope not, but this is what the position of dominion declares. It appears that such a great being as a God could well establish a world where humans could use animals, but where animals did not suffer. However, if Christianity’s God did create such a place, it is not this world. Therefore, the position of stewardship seems all the more likely unless one is willing to grant Christianity's God attributes which would diminish such a being’s loving nature.

Even if you wish to demote Christianity’s God to a more malevolent entity, the fact still remains; animals can experience pain and suffering. Accordingly, it may well be that there are justified reasons for respecting this capacity and treating animals as their lives amounted to more than a commodity regardless of the dictates of any religious dogma.

6c. We can treat animals how we wish because they don’t have a soul.

It may be that according to Christianity and other anthropomorphic religions that nonhuman animals are without a soul. However, this excuse stops far short of justifying the abusive treatment and utter negligence we demonstrate in ignoring other animal's right to be free from pain and suffering. Even if other animals are without a soul, a contention to which some do not believe, consider the fact that according to these anthropomorphic religions humans do have a soul. Treating animals with disdain may be grounds to tarnish the soul of the perpetrators of such abuse.

Aside from this, it is really irrelevant as to whether nonhuman animals have a soul. Individual rights, as respected by the United States government, are not established by religious institutions. The federal government establishes unalienable rights followed by state issued rights. The animal rights position is directing its effort at effecting state and federal laws not those of various religious movements. Because of this, whether or not animals have a soul is of no consequence to the development of animal rights.

7. Hunting

7a. Why is hunting wrong?

While reasons differ, I think the majority of sentiments from animal rights activists can be summed up through the fact that animals are capable of suffering. Because animals (including humans) can experience pain it adds a certain dynamic to their life. For creatures able to experience pain, their life becomes, in part, an endeavor to avoid painful situations. Furthermore, if any creature can experience pain then we have an obligation to see that they are not unnecessarily burdened by harmful stimulations.

This is where all forms of animal use come into play, including that of hunting. Most, if not all, forms of animal use are unnecessary. Because a vegetarian diet is a life sustaining alternative, eating the flesh of living creatures creates unnecessary suffering and violates our obligations to them.

7b. Why is hunting so bad? At least the animals have a chance to get away unlike livestock.

The issue with hunting from the perspective of animal rights has nothing to do with how animals are killed, but why they are killed. Animals have a primary interest in avoiding pain and suffering. Hunting violates this interest out of desire, as does consuming other types of animal flesh.

7c. Hunters help animals because the money spent on permits, stamps, and licenses is used for conservation.

While it is true that some of the funds generated from licenses are used to provide conservation efforts, this type of “contribution” is compulsory and cannot be attributed to any noble gesture. It is the same as licensing fees with automobiles. If you want to drive a car you must pay the fees associated with such an action. While some of these fees may go towards the construction of new roads it would be foolhardy to try and suggest that you deserve some praise for having contributed in this way. If hunters want to hunt and kill animals then they have to pay certain fees none of which do they have much control over.

7d. Many hunters help animals’ more than animal rights activists because they give money to various conservation efforts and organizations.

This statement assumes two things; that conservation is in the animals’ interest and that animal advocates do not direct money towards animal related causes, both of which are false. Most conservation organizations have the interests of hunters in mind, not the interests of animals. Hunters favor organizations that serve to increase their interests. It is little wonder that hunters donate only to organizations that further their interests by expanding either animal habitats or populations so there will be more opportunities to kill those same animals in the future. Because these “conservation groups” are biased in favor of humans exploiting animals, why would an animal rights activist support any such organization? Furthermore, animal rights advocates do indeed give money to organizations that help animals, but these organizations are about saving animals not “conserving” them.

If hunter charity is meant to give a reason why hunting can continue, then it can be concluded that it readily fails. No amount of charity can permit or excuse what hunters do to animals. Take an analogous example, suppose I fund a number of households of which the occupants live below the poverty line. If I provide and upkeep their shelter, supply them with food, and help them to shoulder the burden of raising their children; do I then get to exploit these people and their future generations in whatever way I see fit. Obviously the answer is no. This is, as it should be for no amount of charity can override another’s interest. Just because hunters pay into conservation organizations does not mean that they have established a right to exploit animals.

Also, because hunters receive benefits from supporting conservation organizations, such as maintaining and creating more living targets, it dissolves any altruistic motivation they may claim to have by making financial contributions to these groups. Hunters donate because it is in their interest. Were this otherwise hunters would claim to support organizations that save animals instead of merely conserving the species they hunt. Have you ever heard of hunters wanting to help cats? Of course not, and you won’t until they are allowed to hunt them.

7e. Guns are more humane than bows because the animals die more quickly.

First, there is no sure way to determine that animals die more quickly via one weapon as opposed to another. However, even if such an assertion proved true, does the method of killing differentiate the result? Regardless on how sentient lives are killed, be it with a bow and arrow or a highly mechanized rifle, the result is the same. The implementations used in killing are not a justification for the practice itself. For that we must look to the intent. The intent of hunting is always derived from self-interest else we would restore the natural environment thereby eliminating any excuse to perpetrate such activities.

7f. We have caused a deer overpopulation problem so we need to hunt in order to control their numbers.

We have upset the balance of nature this much is true, but that doesn’t mean that we have reserved the right to exterminate sentient life. Overpopulation does not continue exponentially. There is always a counter balance to help alleviate high populations. Whether it is disease, natural predation, or some other method population numbers will level on their own.

However, there are things we can, and must, do to help right this situation. State Fish and Game departments as well as landowners across the nation supplement deer with additional food so as to increase their numbers and establish what it is backwardly seen as a “renewable resource.” If a group of animals always has sufficient food their population will be more prone to rise than fall.

Logically then a good place to start would be to stop supplanting another animals diet and allow them to once again become part of natures delicate balance. Also, we could work toward restoring nature’s predators such as wolves and pumas, installing deterrents to protect items such as crops or property, and in extreme cases utilizing preventative methods of birth control which have proven effective in studies.

7g. Hunting is an important tool to help regulate population levels.

There are many instances where hunting as a tool to regulate population can be seen as false. Consider safari hunts where animals already in balance with nature, having plenty of food, room, and natural predators, are killed. There are caged hunts where animals are raised and released into an enclosed environment so that a hunter may shoot them. Also many open spaces are stocked with animals to kill each day before hunters take to the field. This can’t be to reduce population numbers if more animals are being released just so hunters can have animals to shoot. Hunters also kill animals that are of limited number to keep as unique trophies. Predators are also killed by hunters. If population control were the chief concern hunters wouldn’t kill the very animals that keep other populations in check.

The question also begs to be asked, why don’t hunters carry over this service to other species? For instance, our companion animals, dogs and cats, are severely overpopulated as well, yet I have never come to know any hunter who advocated a hunting season for these animals. Instead, they allow other methods to be employed.

I think all of the above examples illustrate that hunting is a preference not a necessity. The only animals we pretend to have the need to control and subvert are the ones we desire to kill, or otherwise exploit. Just because hunters choose to hunt certain species of animals that are overpopulated doesn’t mean they are safeguarding them. (see also 7f)

7h. Hunting is a cheap way to get food if you cannot afford to buy it.

To hunt requires significantly more revenue than to purchase food at a supermarket. Hunting is a middle class sport, so say the surveys. Therefore if you hunt you are likely middle class which doesn’t lend much credence to the hunger argument. However, even if someone was starving there are licenses, permits, stamps, firearms, ammunition, apparel, knives, scopes, bows, arrows, field points, target points, calls, scents, tree stands, fuel, and a host of other items to buy. After our after our hypothetical hunters set themselves up with this myriad of equipment we have to wonder why they didn’t have food in the first place. I am reminded of a story where two men were arrested for shooting a deer because they were reportedly starving. Yet according to their accounts one of them was drunk every night (a pricy endeavor in its own right) and the gun used to kill the deer was a brand new SKS rifle. (See the story Lacking Priorities in They Did What) I think a change in financial priorities was in order.

8. Rights

8a. Why not welfare instead of rights?

Because welfare will always allow for animals to be used as a means to an end it can never be adequate for sentient beings. Welfare states that animals can be used so long as pain is minimized. A rights position, on the other hand, says that sentient beings have a right to be free from unnecessary pain and suffering. Sentient life is more than a commodity and welfare try as it might, can never overcome this. Regardless of how well animals are treated, when they are needlessly killed because of another’s desire they become a tool. Read More > > > Why Animal Rights Instead of Welfare?

V. Various

v1. How do you know plants can’t feel pain?

Because plants posses nothing of what is scientifically and biologically necessary to sense pain. Plants have no neurological systems as do other creatures that are capable of experiencing pain. Further, what good would the ability to sense pain serve in an organism which is unable to avoid such an experience. In short, a plant can’t simply pull up its roots and run away if it were being harmed.

When it comes to the minimization of suffering, even if plants could experience pain, veganism would still cause less pain overall because plants wouldn’t have to be raised in the quantities they are now to feed the animals that we in turn cause pain and suffering by raising then killing for food.

| | |
| | | |

Posted/Updated: 1/03/05