Veganism Means War (Or Does it?)

Since I don't think the veganism is just about food, I thought I would post this conversation/debate/contemplation I had with someone. Here it is:

Someone made a simple and good argument today that I thought it'd be interesting to contemplate: "To be a pacifist, you must be a vegan. How can a pacifist justify exploitation and violence against innocent beings, regardless of their species?"

• Person #2 

I think a large majority of people make a serious distinction between humans and other species... But we are kind of totally different than any other being, non?

• Me 

To say that humans are totally different is true insofar as we are capable of things that no other species can. However, if pacifists believe humans should not inflict or perpetuate violence against one another, they should do the same for all other sentient beings, because regardless of species we both have that in common. 


Some religions (such as Jainism) that practice pacifism believe that human life is valued as unique--- the only species able to reach enlightenment; however they still practice compassion to all humans and non-humans requiring their followers to be vegetarian**. 

I researched this topic because I’m the biggest nerd ever!! Here is what a great scholarly journal article said: “Ethical vegetarianism may express for some, then, the conviction that to be fully human is to have reverence for all life, especially sentient life. Part of this involves a rejection of violence. As Twigg (1979, 1983) points out, ethical vegetarianism has traditionally been associated with pacifism as well as a host of unorthodox, radical and oppositional stances. In this it is as much motivated by the need to define what it is to be human as it is from concern with the welfare of animals. As Tester (1991) argues, animal rights, although assimilating animals to the category of the human and vice versa, is also, and perhaps more importantly, about differentiating humans from animals as moral creatures who are alone capable of compassion” (Hamilton, M. Eating Death: Vegetarians, Meat and Violence. Food, Culture & Society v. 9 no. 2 (Summer 2006) p. 155-77)

In a study that they preformed, they wanted to see the stance of vegetarianism on non-health related issues such as war and nuclear weapons programs: “…Ethical vegetarians were rather more opposed to these things than health-oriented vegetarians or those motivated by other reasons, as one might expect. When asked whether they were in favor of or opposed to Britain possessing nuclear weapons 52 percent of ethically motivated vegetarians said they were opposed, while only 28 percent of health-motivated vegetarians and 44 percent of vegetarians motivated by other concerns were opposed, and only 18 percent of non-vegetarians” (Hamilton). They subsequently concluded that vegetarians tend to be “radically” liberal and abstain and oppose from all forms of violence compared to those of non-vegetarians. 

I would say that since humans, Westerners really, have made such a clear and devastating distinction between humans and non-humans, it is hard to say that we can equate pacifism for both. I'm not saying this is a completely sound argument; I would, however, agree it is a really good one. We must keep in mind, like many other moral-ethical viewpoints, that pacifism has many different stances and variations. It is, therefore, impossible to blindly conflate veganism and pacifism for their seemingly foundational stances on violence, because it could come down to something as simple as: "Pacifism has nothing to do with food, only war" (if that is one's standpoint). 

Sorry that this was a really long response. But I ended up researching this topic a little further as it really sparked an interest. I never linked the two in such a way. After reading many different scholarly journal articles and vegetarian/vegan blogs as well as pacifist readings, I can see a connection. However, I do want to concede a little and say that Hitler was a vegetarian who was obviously not a pacifist. There are always examples of the exceptions but that does not nullify over-arching conclusions. Also, I am aware of much of the bias that can be surreptitiously written in vegetarian rhetoric. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a clear connections and fundamentally I believe that vegetarianism/veganism** goes hand in hand with pacifism and visa versa. I would not necessarily require a pacifist to be a vegetarian; however, depending on their stance, it could be hypocritical not to. 

**I am going to treat vegetarianism and veganism as the same words in the response. It is simply because semantically vegetarianism is technically a form of dietary veganism. Veganism is ethical vegetarianism that goes beyond food in every aspect. Therefore, I will use these terms interchangeablely. 

• Person #2

Really interesting Josh! I totally understand all your contentions, except the one about pacifism going hand in hand with ethical vegetarianism. Like you mentioned, there are many reasons someone can choose to be a pacifist which could include being strongly against human war (like me!) that doesn't in any way relate to animal rights.

I agree that vegetarianism is uniquely related to pacifism, but pacifism as a whole is only in some parts related to vegetarianism. They can be mutually exclusive. I grew up in a religious community that had a strong sense of pacifism, but I don't remember ever meeting a vegetarian. It was also possibly this belief that led me to become a vegetarian for a year, though, too!

• Me 

It's interesting how a small comment made by some rando on a blog sparked such an interesting debate and analysis. I think that though both of our analyses we can conclude that pacifism and vegetarianism can be related, but don't have to be! To be honest, I think it's more that vegetarians should be pacifists and not vice versa. We (veggies) can't claim pacifism towards animals and not towards humans (and their actions). Overall, I think we agree! :)

Hope you enjoyed this conversation and it really gets your brain a-turnin'. Today it wasn't the la lengua de un vegan that was satisfied, but rather el celebro.