Vegetarianism and the Ethics of Nonviolence

Intro. to Peace Studies

Vegetarianism: the Rational Choice

Usually when people think of problems with violence, they do not think of violence toward animals. Unlike some forms of violence that might be justified on the grounds of self-defense, there is really no good reason to kill animals for meat. The arguments in favor of vegetarianism are varied. The main argument that seems most relevant to peace studies is that of violence toward animals. Supporters of animal rights make some interesting points. However, a much better argument can be made which will make animal rights activists less open to attack and also draw a clearer connection between respect for animals and all other forms of nonviolence.

My own decision to stop eating meat came about in September of 2002. This decision did not involve much deliberation. I had been teaching at a children’s Peace Camp over the summer, and felt somewhat hypocritical when I told the kids to be kind to their pets and then added, “and that means don’t eat them.” A vegetarian friend had also introduced me to an interesting book, namely Frances Moore Lappe’s Diet For a Small Planet. This book was one of the first major writings to tackle the issues that Americans faced today regarding food, world hunger, and the nutritional and ecological benefits of not eating meat.

My reasons for becoming a vegetarian were related to self-control, personal health, and the ecological and hunger related issues laid out in Lappe’s book. Although the question of animal rights first triggered my interest in vegetarianism, I could not adopt that position for fear that I could never argue it seriously.

Nonetheless, animal rights and violence toward animals remains one of the major arguments directly related to peace studies. This is a difficult issue to reason through. The fact that humans inflict a tremendous amount of violence upon animals is clear. Compassion Over Killing co-director Paul Shapiro has presented some enlightening thoughts on this atrocity. Shapiro says that the most morally relevant characteristic of animals is that they experience pain. He also compares the exploitation of animals to that of human slavery in the United States. Also, Helen Nearing, in “The Ethics of Nonviolent Eating,” points out the cruelty of taking animal from their families and slaughtering them in the most torturous ways. Many of the animals in slaughterhouses remain alive as they are physically mutilated. This extreme amount of violence must be wrong. The sheer degree of the violence must make it immoral.

The problem with this argument however is that it comes into conflict with a very fundamental notion about humans and animals that dates back to ancient philosophy, before Christ. Most ancient philosophers agree that there is a fundamental difference between animals and humans. The difference involves the soul. The soul, according to these philosophers, is a set of powers that animate a body and give it life. The ancient Greeks believed that all living things, including plants have a soul. The difference between plants, animals, and human involve the powers of the soul. Humans have reason, or intellect, which animals do not have. Therefore animals are not equal to human beings and killing them is not as serious a crime as killing another human.

At this point in the argument, one could easily dismiss this philosophical notion of human beings’ intellect. Understandably, there are many philosophical theories that can be dismissed as merely theories. However, in this case, human reason cannot be dismissed because if it is, the argument for vegetarianism becomes very inconsistent. It is possible, with this in mind, to maintain the philosophical view that human beings and animals are unequal, that is to uphold “species-ism,” and also argue on behalf of vegetarianism and nonviolence toward animals. This is what I have had to do as an aspiring philosopher, who is also a vegetarian and pacifist.

There are many reasons to adopt a vegetarian diet that do not involve animal rights. The key to this argument is choice. Human beings can choose not to eat meat. Animals cannot choose to not eat other animals. Without the specific difference of reason, human beings could not be vegetarian. Reason enables humans to make this noble, somewhat super-human, step to sacrifice for love. This deliberate choice is an important aspect of the peace movement and can be used as a paradigm for other peace related issues. But, violence toward animals cannot be compared too closely to other forms of violence without losing the notion of a specific difference between humans and animals.

In the book All of One Peace, Coleman McCarthy says that the violent urges found in male hunters who kill animals does not differ much from the feelings that motivate some men to beat their female partners. This interesting point gets at the source of the connection between peace studies and animal rights, but it undermines the specific difference and the dignity of the human person. Domestic violence is in a different category from animal violence. Abuse of women involves a total disrespect for a human being. Animal violence on the other hand is a convention that most humans have just come to accept. Now the argument could be made that children who encounter violence in the home will think that this is normal and engage in spousal abuse as adults. That does not change the fact that violence toward innocent human beings is always wrong and will be perceived that way by a healthy mind. Violence towards animals is not as self-evident.

Sometimes it takes religion, at religion’s best and most radical, to break the conventions of society. Regarding animal rights and vegetarianism in theological terms there are two figures that come to mind. Andrew Linzey and John Dear are two theologians who have taken on animal rights in the Christian Church. According to the article “When the Peaceable Kingdom?” Linzey, an Anglican priest, seems to be a supporter of the notion of human moral progress. This means that theology is still developing and human beings are coming recognize new dimensions in Christian morality. The law of love that Jesus presents in the Gospel’s is expanding. Linzey claims that the end of slavery and the development of treatment toward women is a sure sign of this moral progress. John Dear, a Jesuit priest, maintains that vegetarianism is part of man’s return to the Garden of Eden. In an article he wrote, published by PETA, Dear talks about the perfection in Eden that was lost through sin. It is his belief that man can contribute to building up the kingdom of God on earth through vegetarian eating. Unfortunately these sources do not represent the official teachings of their respective churches. Yet, all reforms begin with a few, so perhaps the animal rights cause will one day integrate itself into Christian theology.

Due to the specific difference between humans and animals, it is reasonable that most people feel no moral obligation to prevent the killing of animals. Despite this, I think vegetarianism is a useful practice for people in the peace movement since it teaches total nonviolence. Most children do not have to make the choice to kill another human being but do have the choice to smash a bug. It’s a good lesson of nonviolence to teach your children to respect all life, especially the most fragile. This develops a child’s conscience, the tool by which humans make moral choices. Vegetarianism is a rational choice. It makes us more human. Can’t this be said of all nonviolent action? It is rational choice that makes us rise to our greatest potential. Peaceful people choose mercy over vengeance and love over hate. We choose not to give in to our violent instincts. In this paper I have tried to present an argument that blends “species-ism” with vegetarianism and nonviolence toward animals. I think that if animal rights activists would adopt this position they would make significant progress in dialogue with more mainstream thinkers. For example, a moratorium on the death penalty is a way of ending capital punishment and declaring that it is wrong while still trying to find common ground with death penalty advocates. Violence toward animals is wrong because taking life is wrong. And, the severity of the violence must in itself be wrong. In addition to the many wars, executions and violence at home and in the media, the killing of animals is another example of the gratuitous violence in our world.

Although I have not become an advocate for animals’ equal rights, my behavior has changed, ever so slightly, after this lesson. The images of the slaughterhouses disgusted me. The treatment of these animals is totally unnecessary. Prior to this investigation of vegetarianism by the Peace Studies class, I abstained from flesh of animals, but not from fish, eggs, or dairy products. Since the class, I now abstain from milk and am limiting my intake of fish and eggs. It will take time to get off of all these foods, but I certainly cannot imagine ever going back to them. There is no reason for human beings to eat meat, except to advocate violence. The world has enough violence to worry about between meals. Meal times should become human beings’ time to be free of violence and embrace peace.