- [Narrator] Vegans should respect
other people's personal choices.
After all, lions eat meat and plants are alive too,
plus we've eaten meat for thousands of years.
So what does it matter,
as long as the animals are killed humanely?
These are a selection of some of the most common arguments
that people use against vegans,
and there were the arguments that I used to use myself,
but do they actually hold up?
To find out we're going to go through them, as well as others,
to work out whether or not they actually
do justify eating animal products.
Now firstly, it is a personal choice to eat animal products,
just in the same way that it's a personal choice
to abuse a dog or rob an elderly person.
In essence almost every choice that we make
is a personal choice, regardless of whether or not
that choice is moral or immoral.
And besides, what about the personal choice
of the animals who don't willfully walk
into the stunned box or gas chamber
but are instead forced into them against their will?
And if exploiting animals is a choice,
then why choose to be cruel?
And sure animal products can taste nice,
but does sensory pleasure morally justify an action?
After all, we can think of many actions
that provide sensory pleasure
to the oppressor at the expense of a victim.
But are they morally justified because someone enjoys them?
Plus what has higher value, life or taste?
The life and subjective experiences
of sentient animals or our taste buds?
Let's also acknowledge that a meal to us
lasts a matter of minutes,
but to the animals, they've had their entire life
taken from them and have lived a life filled
with suffering, pain and fear.
We take everything from them for a fleeting moment of time.
And it doesn't matter if the animal has lived a good life,
which they don't anyway,
as that still doesn't justify killing them.
A case in point, earlier this year,
YouTubers Nikki and Dan Phillippi
needlessly euthanized their healthy nine-year-old dog Bowser.
They did this because he had nicked their toddler
when their toddler took away his food bowl.
People online were furious,
especially as they hadn't tried to rehome Bowser,
instead just opting to kill him.
But Bowser's story epitomizes the happy animal
who lived a good life.
But this still didn't dampen the reaction
of people online who called the YouTubers murderers.
- You betrayed that dog that loved you and you killed him.
I cannot express how disgusted I am.
- [Narrator] Not to mention that Bowser's death
was significantly more humane
than any death that has ever occurred in a slaughter house.
But that aside, Bowser's death wasn't objectively humane,
because he didn't need to or want to die.
The same is true of farmed animals as well.
Their lives are taken from them needlessly
and against their will.
Furthermore, the synonyms for the word "humane"
include "compassionate", "benevolent" and "kind".
So, is needlessly cutting the throat
of an animal compassionate?
Or is needlessly killing animals in gas chambers benevolent?
Fundamentally, is needlessly killing someone else kind?
The reality is "humane slaughter" is an oxymoron.
But what about lions? They eat meat so why can't humans?
Lions are of course, obligate carnivores
meaning they need to eat meat to survive,
we humans don't.
And besides, why would we base our morality
on the actions of wild animals
who do a whole host of things
that we would never consider morally justified?
Imagine if our morals and laws
were determined by this logic;
someone is in court for murder
and their lawyer in their defense says;
"But your honor lions kill other lions."
The judge goes; "Ah, the indisputable lion
comparison argument. Very well, case dismissed".
But in all seriousness, we have moral agency,
meaning that we are able to make decisions
based on a notion of right and wrong.
And we are also able to be held accountable
for the decisions that we make.
This is why it doesn't matter if other animals eat animals,
or if our ancestors did, for that matter.
What's important now is that we don't have to,
and we have the choice to not cause
so much suffering to animals.
And while it may be true
that we have eaten meat for thousands of years
does the longevity of an action make it moral?
Should something be allowed to continue simply
because it is something that we have done
for a long period of time?
History teaches us that certainly that shouldn't be true.
Likewise history shows us that it also shouldn't matter
if what we do to animals is legal either.
After all there have been and continues to be many examples
of things that were legal
but not moral, and things that have been illegal,
but were perfectly moral,
in essence, legality does not equal morality.
And when we think about laws,
why is it that cutting a pig's throat is acceptable,
but cutting a dog's throat makes you an animal abuser
and a criminal who should be punished?
Whilst it's true that pigs are bred to be eaten,
it's also true that dogs are often bred
to be used for dog fighting.
But we don't consider dog fighting to be moral, simply
because dogs are bred specifically to fight.
So in the same way, killing pigs or any animal
for that matter, shouldn't be considered acceptable, simply
because they are bred to be eaten.
We might then say "but eating animals provides us
with nutrients, whilst dog fighting
is just done for enjoyment".
But the argument only holds true
if eating animal products is a necessity,
which we know isn't.
The scientific consensus
is that a whole foods plant-based diet
could not only be healthy and nutritionally adequate,
but that such a diet can even provide health benefits
in the prevention and treatment
of many of our leading diseases and illnesses.
So in the same way that dog fighting isn't a necessary,
so is eating animal products.
And if we consider that one of the main reasons
we eat animal products is because they taste nice,
that means that one of our primary motivators is enjoyment,
just as it is for dog fighting as well.
Ultimately, one of the main reasons
we hold these paradoxical beliefs
around different species of animals
is because of culture and tradition.
But should culture and tradition determine
what is moral and immoral?
I think most of us would agree that it shouldn't.
After all, female genital mutilation is cultural
and traditional, but it's certainly not moral.
But whilst we may not subscribe to this belief,
without even necessarily realizing it,
culture and tradition heavily influences our behaviors
and actions, so much so that it does inadvertently
determine what we perceive to be moral.
So, is needlessly exploiting a pig,
cutting the throat of a lamb,
or treating a mother cow as property, objectively moral?
Or is it only accepted because culture
has normalized these actions
to the point where we don't even question the morality
of such things?
But what about plants? Aren't they alive too?
Whilst it's true that plants are alive
and can also do some amazing things,
they are not sentient or conscious
and they don't have subjective experiences such as pain.
And besides, because of the feed used for animals,
and the fact that animal farming is the number one cause
of rainforest deforestation and habitat loss,
more plants are killed in the production
of non-vegan foods than they are for plant foods.
So even if plants were sentient and did feel pain,
we would still be morally obligated to be vegan anyway.
And imagine this, if you were driving down the road
and a dog ran out in front of your car,
would you swerve onto a bed of roses
to save the life of the dog?
Or if your house was on fire and a firefighter rushed in
to save your dog, whilst you waited outside,
how would you feel if the firefighter came rushing back out
carrying your aloe vera plant?
And then imagine if you asked, "Why didn't you save my dog?"
And they responded, "Plants have life too you know."
Plus the argument is often made
that because we are more intelligent than other animals
that gives us the right to eat them.
After all we are top of the food chain.
But should intelligence define the worth of someone's life?
Whilst it's fairly obvious it shouldn't,
even if we did believe so, we would still be vegan anyway,
as plants are the least intelligent form of edible life.
And even if we are the most dominant species
and top of the food chain,
just because we can do something,
doesn't mean that we should.
The food chain argument is in essence
an appeal to the philosophy that might makes right.
The idea that because we can physically do something
we are therefore justified to do so.
However, this isn't something we actually believe.
Plus we should definitely hope that we don't one day
encounter a more advanced, extraterrestrial being
that looks upon us the same way
that we look upon pigs and chickens.
I imagine we would quickly change our views
about the food chain, if it was our bodies being exploited.
The same is true even if we are omnivores as well.
Just because we can physically digest animal products,
does not make it moral to do so.
We can also eat dogs, cats, whales, sharks, and dolphins,
but we don't justify doing so by saying we are omnivores
or the top of the food chain.
And no, veganism isn't perfect, but it's not meant to be.
After all we can never live a perfect life.
But what we can do is strive to live a better
and less harmful life, which is what veganism is.
A reduction of the suffering that we cause
and an attempt to create a world
that has less needless pain and death.
And veganism isn't about valuing
non-human animals over humans,
or saying that there are not any human injustices
that still need addressing.
After all, human rights and animal rights
are not mutually exclusive.
We can work to create both simultaneously.
Veganism is simply about recognizing
that non-human animals are individuals
whose lives are important to them
and who deserve moral consideration from us.
(soft music)