Why do vegans talk about veganism so much?

Being a vegan, I meet many people who get on some level why I am vegan, but just don’t understand why vegans talk so much about non-human animals and how they are treated in farming. I have come up with a story which, I hope, will enable you to understand, even if you don’t agree. I want you to really try and visualise yourself in this scenario and be honest with yourself for maximum effect. My goal here is not to convince you to be a vegan, but to convince you that, if you were vegan, you would want to talk about it all the time too.


Imagine you lived in a society where 99% of the population ate humans. These humans are farmed in ways that bring about unimaginable suffering, and they are killed at very young ages. When you find out how most of your food is made, you make a decision to stop contributing to it. You stop purchasing human products.

But most of your friends and family still eat humans. You might go to dinner with friends and see them eating humans around you. They ask you why you don’t eat humans and you explain. They might crack a few jokes, or say that these humans are bred for food, so it’s ok, or that they are less intelligent, so it’s ok. They might say that it’s necessary to eat humans for survival or to be healthy, but you know it’s not.

Perhaps you would feel compelled to tell your friends what really happens in human farms, and why it is wrong to eat them. I can almost guarantee that you wouldn’t be silent. You would want to tell everyone, and wouldn’t care if people thought you were being too ‘pushy’ or ‘preachy’. When your friends listen but ignore your plea, you might start to feel helpless and dejected. You might think about the footage of humans suffering, and know that it doesn’t have to be that way. Your friends are good people, so you just can’t understand why they choose to continue eating humans.


Perhaps you disagree that non-humans should be given ethical consideration. Perhaps you think that the taste of their flesh outweighs their suffering. But through this hypothetical, you can now see why vegans talk about it so much. Because we do think non-humans are as or almost as worthy of moral consideration as humans. We know how easy it is to reduce the suffering caused by animal agriculture, and it is hard for us to live in a society where 99% of people disagree with us. If you don’t think you can understand, then you are deceiving someone, and it’s probably yourself.

 

12 thoughts on “Why do vegans talk about veganism so much?”

  1. Such a mind-opening article! It summarises exactly how we vegans/minority feel in this society. Through your story, it helps non-vegans to see the world we see. I’ve shared it with a few friends, can’t wait to hear their feedback. Great job Michael!!

    1. Thank you so much Alicia! I’d also be very interested to hear their feedback, if you’d be open to sharing. So far I’ve received mostly positive feedback from non-vegan friends and family 🙂

  2. Yes, I agree. Yesterday I had a family meeting. Everyone knows I am vegan. But guess what ? They had the meeting in a famous hamburguer. I could not eat with them, just watch, with lots of patient. But fortunatelly there are opening lots of new vegan restaurants, day after day…

  3. Being Pro-Life, I meet many people who get on some level why I am Pro-Life, but just don’t understand why Pro-Lifers talk so much about unborn humans and how they are treated in the abortion factories. I have come up with a story which, I hope, will enable you to understand, even if you don’t agree. I want you to really try and visualise yourself in this scenario and be honest with yourself for maximum effect. My goal here is not to convince you to be a Pro-Lifer, but to convince you that, if you were Pro-Life, you would want to talk about it all the time too.

    Imagine you lived in a society where 99% of the population aborted humans. These humans are aborted in ways that bring about unimaginable suffering, and they are killed at very young ages. When you find out how this is done, you make a decision to stop contributing to it. You stop paying a part of your Medicare levy.

    But most of your friends and family still murder humans. You might go to dinner with friends and see them proudly claiming it was a woman’s right to murder her unborn child. They ask you why you don’t think it’s a right to murder your own child and you explain. They might crack a few jokes, or say that these unborn humans really a part of the woman’s body, are nothing but an undifferentiated clump of cells and are not sentient, so it’s ok, or that they are less intelligent, so it’s ok. They might say that it’s necessary to murder unborn humans for survival or to be healthy, but you know it’s not.

    Perhaps you would feel compelled to tell your friends what really happens in abortion factories, and why it is wrong to murder unborn humans. I can almost guarantee that you wouldn’t be silent. You would want to tell everyone, and wouldn’t care if people thought you were being too ‘pushy’ or ‘preachy’. When your friends listen but ignore your plea, you might start to feel helpless and dejected. You might think about the footage of unborn humans suffering, and know that it doesn’t have to be that way. Your friends are good people, so you just can’t understand why they choose to continue murdering unborn humans.

    Perhaps you disagree that unborn humans should be given ethical consideration. Perhaps you think that the economic costs or social inconvenience outweighs their suffering. But through this hypothetical, you can now see why Pro-Lifers talk about it so much. Because we do think unborn humans are as or almost as worthy of moral consideration as born humans. We know how easy it is to reduce the suffering caused by abortion factories, and it is hard for us to live in a society where 99% of people disagree with us. If you don’t think you can understand, then you are deceiving someone, and it’s probably yourself.

    1. See, you do understand! Only it’s not quite the same thing. On the one hand, you have causing suffering to 90 billion land animals each year for no valid reason (no necessity), and on the other hand, you have painlessly ending the development of a fetus that is not yet sentient to change major life outcomes.

  4. “. . . if you were vegan, you would want to talk about it all the time too.” Not necessarily. Everyone is different, and my perception of where we are in our quest to eliminate suffering is different from yours. I am not sure that enough people have enough information to help them choose veganism.

    I suspect that your example of a society where people eat humans will make many people defensive and cause others to discount everything you say after that as extremist nonsense. I agree with you, eating one kind of sentient being is as impossible as eating another. But I am already vegan, and have been for decades. I have also been living with and among many different kinds of animals for decades, and I know many of them personally. People who do not have friends who are animals almost certainly don’t know how much we have in common. Even you yourself say that “non-humans are as or almost as worthy of moral consideration as humans.” That says that one species is just a little bit better than others. It is easy for a human to feel that way about humans. The only other species I know that seems to agree with humans there is canines. The birds I know think birds are surely the coolest and smartest; equines who have been allowed to develop normally are open minded, but generally trust equines before humans, . . . — I don’t want to “preach’ and tell people they should be vegan. I want to tell them about some of my bird friends, their social structure, their intelligence, loyalty, courage, arrogance, compassion. Then when they say they “love” Kintaro, the brave snake fighter or his son Marley, the enthusiastic adopter of baby birds, I want them to THINK.

    1. Thanks for the feedback Anna.

      I should say that I’ve changed my mind since writing this. I now think that the suffering of non-humans might plausibly be more important than humans, since it seems plausible that non-humans have a higher capacity for suffering than humans. The jury seems out on this so far, but since they evolved with less intelligence than humans, non-humans rely more on pain/pleasure stimuli for survival.

      I’m all for communicating strategically about this. But sometimes, I feel like I should say what I think is true regardless of how it may make some people defensive.

      Regarding your first point, that’s fair. I think if I wrote this today, I would say something more like: My goal here is not to convince you to be a vegan, but to convince you that, if you cared deeply about the lives of non-humans, you would want people to talk about it much more than they do too.

      1. Since a guy whose academic credentials only extend as far as his theoretical ability to blow up planets and the like in order to mine them for minerals, I won’t be bothered to point out, once again, the logical fallacy you’ve brokered, namely, Hume’s is-ought fallacy.
        Instead, you’ll be pleased to know, the next time I’m caught between the devil and a hard place by the involuntary imposition of an awkward decision making dilemma, I’ll be rightly guided by your philosophy. So, if in the unlikely event I am forced to make a choice between ending a cockroach’s existence and doing you in, let me just say, I hope you’ve filled out your will.

        1. I respect the attempt to demonstrate you know about my academic credentials, but that’s not my sole expertise. That’s not even really what my PhD was about. But again, I do respect the attempt.

          This post doesn’t even talk about what one ought to do, so your critique is off the mark.

  5. Again, Michael, you’ve entered a discipline you really haven’t ploughed very deeply. You’ve read Regan, Singer et al, but you’ve neither bothered to appreciate what it takes to construct a robust metaethical theory nor exposed yourself to the plethora of material detailing the logical fallacy you continue to commit. Your worldview is in tatters, and you apparently have not, even after all these years, understood Hume’s complaint. You’ve brushed him aside as though he is of no consequence.
    However, what’s worse, far worse, is now you deny you’ve said what one ought to do, despite claiming that “the suffering of non-humans might plausibly be more important than humans”. If this is not a tacit call to arms then what you’ve posted is without any content or purpose. What is one supposed to do with this statement of yours? Read it, erase it from your memory and then move onto the next vacuous meme? Hardly.
    Clearly, if it means anything at all, then it must invite, on a utilitarian calculus, with (or without?) the addition of a ceteris paribus clause, the conclusion that animals are more important than humans. Nothing new here. After all, Regan, the “god” of veganism, has committed himself to rescuing the chicken but throwing the disabled child overboard.
    BTW, what is this “more important” yard stick? Care to unpack it? Got your objective standard at the ready?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: