I started to respond in a certain direction to this article, but as I read I decided not to. The logic used is powerful at times, but very mixed up. The author kind of flip flops a few times, and what's up with the repeating of paragraphs? I see much of the entire argument as a semantic one. The author suggests a large difference between animal liberation (which is claimed to be noble) and veganism (which is claimed to be pointless). Semanitc nonsense if you ask me. Most vegans are animal liberationists. That's usually what inspires their veganism. Few people are vegans solely for diet. So the author bashes veganism and talks up animal liberationists, without realizing that vegans are usually animal liberationists. So what if the terms are used interchangeably sometimes, and who cares if veganism is used mistakenly sometimes in place of using animal liberationists. There is an essence behind both terms that is the same. Sure, to be accurate, the terms mean different things. Veganism refers to a diet choice, and animal liberation refers to a moral and social standpoint, but veganism has taken on a newer meaning by being so associated with animal liberation, due to many of the supporters being both vegans and animal liberationists. I was reading it fast but another major (philosophical) issue I had with it is as follows, "There is no coherent morality or ethics rooted in nature that can view the killing and eating of animals as wrong. In nature, killing and eating something is a respectful, intimate activity, and a necessary part of natural cycles. Viewing this as wrong is nothing but a shockingly alienated, civilized view that domesticates animals at a metaphysical level by reducing them to quasi-citizens in need of rights. Fuck that shit. Humans and all other animals are much more free and full outside of legal frameworks, without rights, only needs and desires."
And there is nothing saying it is right. There is nothing saying anything in favor of wrong or right for ANYTHING. That's the "null" of the "absurd universe." So this leaves us with a natural law of free-for-all, aka chaos. Who's okay with that? By revealing the absurdity of the universe in this way, we are completely unjustified in making a positive or negative (or any kind of) claim for any value or imperative. This logic leaves us in a neutral state of organization lack. That is all the author has revealed by the logic in the above passage. However revealing the absurd has extreme implications. That means that anyone can do anything, because by the logic being used here, the universe necessitates nothing, no one need be justified for ANYTHING.
It's far too extensive to go into fully, but this is an enormous issue. Because people try to make claims about a lack of natural imperatives. They say there is nothing rooted in nature that says something is wrong or right. Do they realize that this unravels all thought of all western civilization? Sure it is true, but the implications are severe, and contradictory to everything we take for granted. Molestations is then not wrong, rape is then not wrong, murder is then not wrong, incest is then not wrong. All these things make people cringe. Yet they fail to see that all these things are affected when they say killing animals in not wrong. The fact is NOTHING is wrong. However, that poses a great problem to human organization. How then do we organize in a universe that is inherently absurd?
This is why reading Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Camus is essential. They explored the bottom of the bottom in philosophy. They explored what all regular people and philosophers obliviously work towards with their logic. All discovery science, almost all philosophy, psychology, all of it. It all simply breaks things down more and more, and ends up revealing the absurd. But the absurd is horrifying, and we naturally reject it, or fail to realize it. However, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Camus were in full recognition of the absurd. Everyone should be.
But what's really funny is when people without actually recognizing the absurd, reveal the absurd in favor of their points (such as "there's nothing actually wrong with killing animals"). However the absurd itself is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to all human desires and intuitive logic. So by using the absurd to make a point in favor of their argument, they contradict themselves and thus deconstruct their own argument (the focus of Derrida's philosophy, which I've repeatedly stressed).
Sorry for ranting like this, but these issues are among the enormous assumptions that people obliviously exercise ALL THE TIME. It drives me crazy, and I've occasionally talked about it before on here.
We have to first be in FULL recognition of the absurd. At that point we can employ the needed logic to build structure and organized order in a universe that works against us. That way, there can be no more break down of anything. It is a cleansing of contradictions. That way we can say "we can do no more: because it would be humanly impossible. That's what my post from a couple days ago addresses (to an extent.)
But anyways, essentially what the author is addressing is the vegetarians/vegans dilemma. It's the same dilemma that anyone has when they try to resist the atrocities of corporate industry or state. It is the individuals inability to make a change to something that is larger than themselves. Nothing new.
"Secondly, veganism takes moral prohibitions that are not logical within nature but only within a specific historical context and universalizes and mystifies them."
I see the issue going much much deeper than that. The philosophical aspects reach enormous depths.
"Thirdly, veganism is missionary. As a fairly deserved generalization, y'all try to convert."
You could say the same thing about abolitionists. When there is a moral issue at stake, people get passionate.
Comparing it to religions? The attributes are shared, but not related. The author is trying to make (an ambiguous) point by associating religion and veganism. So? What are the implications? Resemblance does not equal association. But if vegans are motivated by emotion, rather than a logic, then they do resemble religion in a way.
However, the point is solid that simply deciding to stop eating meat is of virtually no effect. Choosing not to eat meat isn't even the issue, choosing not to BUY meat is the real issue. Because buying meat contributes directly to the immoral act of slaughtering animals. I see slaughtering meat as immoral, I see eating meat as amoral. Because eating meat doesn't necessarily contribute to slaughtering animals (if the meat is given to you, you find it, roadkill, etc.). Unfortunately one little person doesn't make much of a difference when they refuse to buy meat. This is the vegetarian's dilemma. Choosing not to eat meat creates direct problems for other morals. For instance, in the cafeteria at my school, sometimes I end up unknowingly selecting a dish that has meat in one of the servings. So then what do I do? Refuse to eat it, and throw it away so that it is wasted? That doesn't seem right either. It seems once its said and done, and the meat is in the serving on the plate, then it should be eaten -not wasted. SO, I eat it.
But then the problem expands. What's the point of choosing not to eat the meat they serve? Didn't I pay them a set fee to use the buffet service for the whole school year? What effect does refusing to eat meat have? -NO effect. They still get my money, that money shuffles around to buy food goods, which will often be meat. So under such a condition, it makes no sense at all to refuse meat. It makes a joke out of the vegetarian cause.
Then the problem expands even more so. Given the problems stated above, I conclude it would be most practically balanced, effective, and logical to simply not BUY meat when I can avoid it (such as grocery shopping). Don't give direct effort to buying meat. That seems to serve the cause, and avoid making a joke out of the cause (unlike the cafeteria situation). But then I realize, that it doesn't matter if I buy meat from a grocery store either. What do they care what I buy? As long as they get my money somehow then it's all good. The meat I don't buy is substituted by more vegetables, and other shit. So they still get about the same amount of money from me. And where does that money go? -It shuffles around to buy more goods, and much of which will be meat. And that continues the chain of contribution to slaughtering meat.
The only solution would be to shop at an all vegetarian grocery store. Those are quite hard to find. So, we have in recognition, the vegetarians dilemma. And it is much of which the author addresses. Though some of the argument given is problematic for me for reasons that are far to far out of scope for me to worry about here. It makes a good point about the ineffectiveness of simply "not eating meat." That's why I strive to argue against speciesism, and anthropocentrism, and the industries that perpetuate these mentalities. I don't try to ask people to stop eating meat, I ask them to reevaluate the morality behind where and how they get the meat.
Okay I think I've said enough.
LMFAO I knew you were going to say that. And I told my self that if you say something as hilarious as that then I will give up all hope for all of our debates. There you go, reducing complicated lifestyles and behaviors to economics. I'm not saying that welfare doesn't play a role in some people's irresponsibility, but it sure as hell isn't a solo role. Pure carelessness produces unwanted and unaffordable children, not so much the hope for more welfare.
