A vegan couple starved their baby by trying to raise him without animal products, including breast milk.
I can see changing your diet for health reasons, but thinking there is any moral reason to change your diet (especially to full vegan) or to encourage that diet change on anyone else is just crazy.
Tai-Chi Policy 
Why does it all-of-a-sudden become noteworthy simply because the couple was vegan? Would the event have raised such press if the parents were omnivores who had treated their child poorly; as probably occurs daily? I doubt it.
Just because that particular couple were obviously ignorant of how to properly raise a vegan child does not mean that many people don’t do it all the time.
At the risk of sounding like the so-called “food police”, what is so crazy about changing ones diet for ethical reasons? Note that I am not positioning my views on you, I’m simply curious as to your perspective.
Cheers,
Luke
It’s not because the couple were vegan, it’s because they tried to impose a set of diet restrictions — which have health concerns associated with them — on their child. They place a higher ethical value on animals (even ones that aren’t killed, such as dairy cows!) than on their own human child.
That also brings us to why I called the ethical reasons to change one’s diet crazy. Excluding banning specific products from certain countries for political purposes, the ethics of most diet changes place a higher moral value on animals than humans. It’s not so noticeable in America because we’re so wealthy, but in poorer countries many people have to struggle to eat enough to get them through the day, and trying to take away animal products because you care about how the animals are treated elevates the animal to a higher status than the person — Which is not only crazy, but fundamentally wrong.
I guess I should say that I can see moral reasons to change your own diet, although I think they’re a little arrogant. Changing someone else’s diet I think involves a morality that is somewhat upside down. But please, I encourage you to try and change my point of view.
True, these dietary restrictions do have associated health concerns if the diet, especially for young children, is not addressed adequately. However, these particular vegans were merely stupid and ignorant as There are many parents (both omni and vegan) who essentially neglect their own children.
You are likely incorrect in saying that they place a higher ethical value on animals than their own human child. Vegans (myself obviously being one) simply consider human and non-human animals to be equal; i.e. they are not speciesest. These parents’ ignorance and wish to be ethically consistent is not reflective of higher ethical values. It has almost nothing to with their veganism – they were either a) uneducated or b) neglectful as to what should be fed to their child, which can as easily occur with omnis. If an omni had raised their child on dairy milk and apple juice the same would have happened.
And dairy cows do die, in fact, a dairy cow’s life is much, much worse than that of a “meat cow”. A meat cow is bred to the slaughter, while a diary cow is constantly raped and inseminated to keep her producing milk which means that her children become veal or their stomachs (rennet) in cheese- again and again and again. Then when she cannot produce any more milk (after a few years as they are drugged to produce massive amounts per day) she will probably become mince. Do you find it strange that no other species drinks another species’ milk? And even more so when most adults would be disgusted at the prospect of drinking even their own mother’s milk?
No, I disagree: it does not place a higher more value in animals than humans. It merely affords them basic respect and compassion – that they should be able to live free from pain, torture and suffering – is that too much to ask? In the vast, vast majority of cases, the need to consume animals is not out of survival it is wanton desire, nothing else. Sure, in some places it is obviously different on occasion but for the majority of the global population this is not the case. Besides, vegetables are almost always cheaper to produce/buy than animals.
Moreover, they (we) are simply aiming to treat non-human animals as equals – not higher. You would consider a companion animal that you have to be almost part of your family – you love and cherish him/her as well as provide for his/her needs as you do any other human member.
The fact that sentient animals are aware and can feel love, joy, pain, happiness and suffering means that they should be given the right to live and be free from harm. A dog or cat you may have is an obvious example of this; cows and chickens etc are no different. The fundamentals between human and non-human differ only in degree not way and thus, have the same rights. If it were a matter of survival then sure, you can do what you need to survive.
I don’t want you to have be caged without proper food, care, love and neither do I want a chicken caged with six others without light or room, in pain from de-winging, de-beaking and disease in the air unable to ever turn around or fly.
The moral reasons are arrogant? How so?
Again, I also disagree that changing someone else’s morality is in itself upside morality. Note that I don’t tend to discuss veganism often – it usually achieves nothing – but that doesn’t mean it is amoral. For example, when the Nazi’s persecuted the Jews we didn’t let them have “each to their own” to do so would be insanity. Although, throughout history racism and sexism have been legal and socially acceptable, and now, technically, they are not. This is because people have resisted and challenged other people’s views. We seek to do the same, innocent lives are being enslaved, tortured and killed without justifiable reason.
I have rambled a lot here (sorry), but I ask you to consider this:
If you agree that non-human animals can feel the same basic emotions that we can then think about this analogy. A man called Alex was in a park holding a flame to a kitten, and a young woman came up to him absolutely horrified (as anybody would have) and asked: “Why are you doing this?!”. He replied that he enjoyed it, that he wanted to. Is that not the only reason we have for exploiting animals; that we enjoy it, that we want to? Is it not completely and utterly, in normal circumstances, unjustifiable?
I would say that a man who enjoys the pain of other beings has some sort of twisted mindset that is in need of being addressed. I also agree that the parents in the original story were neglectful, and not an example of vegans as a whole. But let me now ask you a question: A girl and her puppy fall into a river. You can dive in, swim, and save one of them, but the river is too fast and cold to save both. Which one is correct to save, and why?
If you’re trying to refuse to be speciesest, than how do you feel about the fact that many male animals rape the females of their species? Surely an innocent animal is being exploited here! Or predators — if a wolf just killed a sheep for food, did we just witness murder? If not, why does it matter when we kill a sheep for food?
The arrogance comes in refusal to discriminate between species: if a starving person has meat available, who are you to deny them that food? Is it wrong for them to try and eat to survive at the expense of an animal’s life?
But don’t we all have a twisted mindset if we know that we are directly supporting such treatment and yet continue to particpate in this horrendous system of exploitation?
That example is an ethical dilemma; it would be ethically acceptable to save either seeing as reality dictates that only one can be saved. Although, chances are that most people – vegans included – would choose the girl simply because they can relate more closely as per human communication or girls that they know in their life. This is a natural bias that cannot be avoided, much like those that exist with the race and sex of a person. But, that is not to say that natural bias justifies horrific treatment for no logical or justifiable cause.
Similarly:
Speciesism refers to discriminating on grounds of species alone – akin to racism and sexism. Those examples are representative of nature, which, although not pleasant, is obviously natural. The rape (if one can call it that: it is a human, not non-human term) is a genetic mechanism that ensures the survival of the species and the wolf and sheep situation is not necessarily murder – it is survival. This is what distinguishes us from “the animals” – we have morals, compassion and societal restrictions placed upon our behaviour that judge right from wrong, and moreover, we can easily survive without killing another animal in much the same way that herbivore animals do.
Simarily:
I have pondered that which you pose in your last paragraph many times. Do we have the inherent right to survival? What grants us permission to live at the expense, and ultimately, death, of another creature?
Anyway, if we do have that right, then, in the necessity of survival, eating meat is justified. However, this is because exploiting animals is accepted within society and thus, a person may have to resort to it, while in a vegan society (theoretically) they could simply resort to eating vegetables.
The philosophy of animal rights is simply to reduce pain and suffering, and to afford non-human animals the same rights that we hold. That is, I don’t need to eat, wear or use any animal products and thus, where reasonably possible, I don’t.
Sorry, it is quite late here and I thought I should at least make some response for the moment so I just used those quoted sections (all from here) for the sake of brevity. If you wish, time permitting, I will go into more depth tomorrow to properly answer any parts I failed to respond to properly.
So basically, you claim there’s no distinction between humans and animals except for when it supports your cause, i.e. it’s not wrong for the animal to do something, but it’s wrong for us to do the same or to put the animal in a situation where the same thing will happen?
Ok firstly without reading each reply – because i just dont have enough time – i think i will remain neutral…
In that – changing dietry needs for ethical reasons is well justified – the concept of exploitation of animals is a widespread problem – acknowledged by few.
However, changing the needs of a baby?
“They place a higher ethical value on animals (even ones that aren’t killed, such as dairy cows!) than on their own human child.”
Thats a fairly un ethical concept in itself – as the child is not old enough to make its own descisions.. Although, had the dietry requirements of a baby been looked into perhaps it was possible to feed the child a vegan AND useful diet – which would not starve the baby.
(note: cows are suposed to live for up to 20 years and dairy cows live for only around 4 years… that is where the ethics come into consideration – suffering that causes collapse from exhuastion and a life to be cut short)
Also, this incident was most likely isolated – and due to their carelessness – blame is placed on vegans everywhere?
Someone let me know what you are up to discussing in some form… because i cant read through all of the replys… but it seems like a good discussion??
Sorry about all the spelling errors (i am being told to get off the internet)
Like I said, I’ll respond in more depth tomorrow but seeing as I was just informed by Sarah (sargehh) that you had replied I will quickly reply with what I, and the majority of vegans, stand for:
I believe that there is no distinction, period, between human and non-humans, and thus, we both should be afforded much the same rights. However, humans are the only species capable of, and hence that hold an inherent responsiblity, a moral obligation to be concerned for the rights of others.
In extensively quoting the ALF site the impression is probably given that I take it as doctrine. This is not the case, it just very accurately and intelligently covers that which I am trying to convey.
So you are saying that the difference between us and animals is that we can tell the moral difference between our actions, and so therefore are obliged to be the only species that goes out of its way never to harm any other species.
Okay, opening an entirely different can of worms because I can see a useful contradiction of logic: You’re against abortion, right? If not, how is the life of the fetus any less precious than the life of, say, a tapeworm? The fetus is in fact more intelligent and aware, but are you supportive of the mother killing it off?
oh yes, and if a person saves their dog before a child, and the child drowns, that person should be charged with negligent homicide.
Here is something to consider –
If a person saves their dog before their child and the child drowns – this should be, in all cases, regarded as negligent and they be charged with homicide. However – If it had been vice versa there would be no case – the innocent would be brushed aside with “so get another dog.”
As is the law – yet see where the animal is exploited just because they cant scream or cry for help – it knew it was dying and could do nothing – I see no difference but pure ignorance.
I don’t know a whole lot about abortion – but to me – it depends on which stage the fetus is at – http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch03/stages.mhtml
Abortion, if completley nescesary, at 1 month, Is justifiable to some (including me – but no later)
And also there is the arguement of not bringing a child that cannot be supported into the world – which i dont follow but it is still a good point to consider.
1) Essentially, yes: if we can assert that each act we perform can be attributed varying degrees morality then, yes, we have a moral obligation.
Some more quotes to demonstrate my position:
2) On the issue of abortion there is no real large consensus, it comes into conflict with people’s religious beliefs etc. However, if arguments that aren’t based upon rationality – i.e. most religious ones – are excluded, one must consider the interests and subsequent rights of the foetus.
Personally, I am unsure as to whether the “potential” of the foetus (from a non-religious perspective) even enters the discussion; I am truly uncertain. Does the potential of a foetus to become sentient have weight? Regardless of any conclusion I come to with regard to the concept of “potential life” does not mean that I will deter from being pro-choice; every person should be able to make their own decisions and no white male judge (as it tends to be) should be able to position restrictions on these rights or establish what amounts to forced pregnancy. I maintain that my beliefs, lack thereof and opinions should be mine only and thus, should not intrude on another’s.
I can’t find a link Gary Francione’s stance on abortion but I have heard his stance on this podcast and I find myself virtually in agreement with it. Please listen to the podcast (or at least the relevant parts) as he explains the pro-abortion stance with regard to animal rights quite articulately. Essentially, sentient creatures have interests and rights, and non-sentient (aka potentially sentient) creatures do not.
That being said, I don’t know if a tapeworm is sentient or not; does it have interests; and thus, does it have rights? Regardless, one does not contrast creatures on the basis of intelligence (much as we don’t exclude retarded adults and children from the moral community because of their retardation). Depending on at what point in the process you are referring to, the foetus is not sentient, and consequently does not have interests or rights.
3) Besides, what is this discussion really about? Both you and I, and virtually every non-psychopathic person, recognises that harming animals is unnecessary and quite simply wrong – nobody enjoys or thrives in the suffering and torturing of animals. On that basis we have identified their interests and needs, and that should be sufficient. So why do omnivores insist on finding some contradiction, some loophole, some inconsistency in the concept when vegans are simply doing what they can to minimise pain and suffering? Is this such a bad thing – to not want a life to become a torturous death in order for profit margins to increase and stomachs to be satisfied?
Okay, let me put it this way: what’s more valuable, a tapeworm or a dog?
I think my comment may have been filed under moderation as it is not showing up, and if I re-post it says duplicate comment.
There we go. There’s been a couple of times your comments have asked for moderation — I think it’s the quotes. That one somehow went straight to the spam box rather than asking me for moderation.
A fetus has a nervous system as of the first month, is proven to be capable of feeling pain in the second trimester and possibly in the first, and is a separate life form even from conception — albeit one that gets its sustenance from the mother, just as many parasites do (I am not calling babies parasites! I am just making a comparison of biological processes for the sake of an argument). A tapeworm also has a rudimentary nervous system. What I am trying to figure out is if you either believe all animal life is deserving of the same rights, a prospect I find ludicrous given the nature of life and death, or if you make some distinction, most of which would contradict the blanket statements you’ve argued for. You seem to be arguing that anything capable of pain or feelings is sentient — which would mean almost anything with a nervous system — and which is a different definition from what most people hold (which is the capability of abstract thought and reasoning, i.e. advanced intelligence). If I’m misunderstanding your argument, this might not be the case, but I’m trying to set up the extreme cases because, just as with programming, philosophy is best understood by figuring out the cases at the edges.
I would listen to the podcast if it wasn’t 120 minutes long. Could you tell me what sections have to deal with abortion and veganism?
A little off-topic, but here’s a delightful story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501009_pf.html
By the way:
Both you and I, and virtually every non-psychopathic person, recognises that harming animals is unnecessary and quite simply wrong
Wrong. I don’t believe killing cows to make hamburgers is quite simply wrong. And I can assure you that I am not psychopathic.
(Sorry, I don’t know how to quote things properly, I guess)
The discussion on abortion is roughly within 37:55 – 50min. As the interview covers a lot of the points you raise above, I’ll not answer them here. Although, if you still have further questions I’ll happily answer them.
The definition of sentience at Wikipedia (yes, I know, not necessarily the most reputable source. However, its explanation is sufficient for these purposes) is the accepted definition, and that which I am in agreement with.
Why should a being’s capacity for reasoning even enter the argument? Refer to the quote in my second-to-last comment (#13), as it describes the flaws in using such a criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Put simply, a child (let alone a severely autistic one) does not have the capacity for abstract thought and advanced intelligence, and moreover, such a criterion is rather pointless. That is, we don’t torture stupid humans because they can suffer and have a right to be free from suffering, and the same right should be said of non-humans. As well, we may have abilities that some non-human animals lack, but many of these animals also have abilities that we ourselves lack.
I forgot to add:
Mentally ill or disabled humans are not tortured, killed or experimented upon, instead, they are placed under our care and support because we feel the moral obligation to do so. The same should apply for non-human animals, as they may be intellectually inferior then it is our duty to protect and assist them.
The podcast’s position on abortion might as well be swiss cheese it’s so full of holes! First of all, he claims ignorance on the part of whether or not fetuses are sentient (and I was making the common error of confusing sentience with sapience, which is what I think most people consider for what has rights) as his primary excuse for supporting abortion and in his words, “only the Christian Right argues against that.” Go watch the National Geographic special “In the Womb”. It’s common knowledge that sentience is developed fairly early on.
Next, practically the sentence afterwards he says if you assume that the baby is sentient we’ve got a position “unique to nature” where you’ve got one sentient being inside another — HAH! Over 60% of species of animal life on the planet are parasitic(another wonderful factoid I’ve gotten from paying attention to National Geographic)! While most parasites are smaller animals, there are certainly quite a few fish which are fairly advanced species of parasites.
There’s a reason we care for mentally Ill or disabled humans. When we say all men are created equal, we are not talking about what they currently have but what their potential is. Time and time again people have overcome the greatest of disabilities and proven to the world that human potential, which I would say is quite strongly linked with sapience, not sentience, can accomplish anything. I have never seen a retarded dog make a difference in the world.