Definition:
dogma
1.
The established belief held by a group as absolute truth, not to be disputed or
diverged from by “true believers”
2. A point of view or tenet put forth as
authoritative without adequate grounds
Forcing
things into unrealistically neat and convenient boxes, we ignore many of the
difficult issues of neuroscience, philosophy of the mind and meta-ethics.
·
Some things are more complicated than we may at first think.
·
Let’s stop saying things that are ill-considered or wrong.
Beware anthropomorphism
and the naturalistic fallacy. [1]
At what stage do systems of interacting chemical
reactions get defined as life? Is pain anything more than an electro-chemical
response? What is ‘consciousness’? Are all conscious creatures equally conscious? [2]
Some ideas to consider:
·
The sympathy/‘sense of morality’ we feel is just a misfiring
Darwinian mechanism that has historically aided us in passing on our genes
through reciprocal altruism with those in our immediate social circle. [3]
·
Consent over the ending of one's life is a distinctly human
invention and cultural convention - a historical residue of New Testament values.
Over generations, values are indoctrinated into people through the cultural
context of their upbringing.
·
‘Good and evil’ and logical, universal moral law do not exist. “Right... is the child of law: from real
laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature...invented
by poets, rhetoricians...come imaginary rights” [4]
·
An outgroup’s admittance into our moral consideration is based
solely upon how much of a disturbance they can cause to the rest of society in
protest to their treatment. If disruption achieves a threshold they are
accepted through appeasement for the greater wellbeing of society. [5]
·
Despite having nerve cells, another species’ conscious experience may
be incomparable to ours. When we talk about ‘sentience’ and nervous systems, we
are always talking about a spectrum of
complexity and function.
The non-centralised response where a human
drops a hot object before we even feel our hand burn illustrates the type of distinction
made when suggesting there is no consciousness to fully ‘experience’ this pain
in some animals. [6]An oyster arguably has more in common with a
plant than a cow. [7]
Many
have forgotten that veganism is merely an arbitrary line in the sand as a useful
rule-of-thumb guide for an economic boycott, not a dogmatic exercise in
becoming a self-flagellating puritan.
·
Fanatical obsessions with minute quantities in
ingredient lists follow a law of
diminishing marginal return. [8]
·
A quantitative
economic objectivity should lie at the heart of our desire for change for
animals. [9]
·
Veganism is not
intrinsically special, not cruelty free and still not 'a minimum of
cruelty'. [10]
·
This is why vegetarianism/veganism is seen by many as a personal
preference and an arbitrarily-chosen dogma, not a universal moral imperative.
That
we don’t sweep the floor as we walk could be seen as a disgusting immoral act
to a Jain.
Who
are we to tell anybody else what to do, or to dictate where their line should
be?
Who
are we to judge with such clear and absolute authority?
What
is more cruelty-free: taking an unnecessary, avoidable journey (eg. for social
purposes) travelling in a vehicle killing and maiming dozens of tiny animals as
we go, or eating a crisp with a tiny bit of lactose near the end of the
ingredients list?
In
fact, is the reality not that everybody chooses where to draw their own line on
a continuous spectrum between Pleasure vs. Sacrifice?
[1]
[2]
[3]
The
God Delusion, R. Dawkins, Chapter 6-The Roots Of Morality: Why are we good?
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
http://www.slate.com/id/2248998/ 'Why even strict vegans should feel
comfortable eating
oysters
by the boatload'
“Granted, no single line
of demarcation will please everyone. What I have just written may surprise some
vegetarians, since, after all, mollusks are animals. But even the line between
the animal and vegetable realms is not precise, as disagreements among
biologists about newly discovered micro-organisms regularly show. So long as we
keep in mind the reasons for being a vegetarian we will be less concerned with
a rigid adherence to the animal/vegetable distinction, and more concerned with
the nature and capacities of the being we are thinking of eating" –Animal Liberation,
1st Edition p179
[8]
[9]
“As
anyone perusing the internet will see, there are no shortages of opinions about
the definition of “vegan.” A common thread seems to be that each person’s
definition of vegan is: “What I am.” If a person eats sugar (or drinks water)
that was filtered with charred bone, then sugar is vegan. If they don’t, it
isn’t. Honey, whey, film, old baseball gloves, beer, smoking, medicine, a restaurant's
veggie burger flipped with a non-sterilized spatula, etc. A friend of mine (and
long-time vegan) once wrote to a member of the vegan police: “I grow weary of
the term ‘vegan.’ It seems to become just a label for moral superiority.”
-Matt
Ball, (co-founder) Vegan Outreach
http://www.slate.com/id/2196205/pagenum/1 ‘The Great Vegan
Honey Debate’
[10]
Vegan chocolate &
sweets (palm oil-orangutan); electronics (coltan-mountain gorilla); hardback
books (glue); sugar (refining-bone); tires and soap (tallow); transport
(insects); pet ‘de-flea’ing (fleas!); cinema (gelatine); condoms (casein); cereal
(field mice)
We must address the false
and ridiculous distinction between intentional and 'unintentional' harm. Shoot
a gun into a crowd of people but intend
for the bullet to pass through the gaps between them. If you kill people, are
you responsible?
So why will we take a car journey
or a pay for a train ticket, absurdly content with the delusion that we intend to pilot the vehicle harmlessly through
air containing crowds of flies?
'Oops, look what happened...oh well that's ok because
I didn’t intend for them to be maimed and killed.' Does that hold much water when we compare it to the
human case? Such false logic is clearly unacceptable.
Intention is irrelevant; we
are responsible and accountable for our actions - negligence is no excuse.
For those who genuinely
believe in an animals' right to life, almost all journeys are ethically
unjustifiable and any that are undertaken must be duly weighed against a sombre
reverence for it literally being a matter of life and death for many.
Should vegans carry soap
so they'll never have to use what's provided in a public restroom? The tires of
cars and bikes contain stearic acid (derived from animal fat). Should a true
vegan ever use a vehicle?
Veganism cuts out some of
the worst, most controversial suffering, usually of mammals, birds and fish. But
the lifestyle of any human still inflicts great suffering that we must all take
responsibility for - potentially worst of all to the silent and often-neglected
majority of animalia - the insects.
