It is not uncommon for me to hear these words by carnists

“I commend you for being vegan, I wouldn’t ever be able to do it!”

“How can you be vegan? I get vegetarianism, but veganism is extreme!”

Or my favorite… “Being vegan is so hard, I could never quit cheese!”

The point being made is that there is a distinguishable trait between vegans and non-vegans. Vegans do not have a superpower, as some might proclaim. Humanity, empathy and a means of understanding are shared, society-imposed qualities of coexistence. The choice for some to adopt a vegan lifestyle is just a choice. However, the choice of not being vegan is not one.

What I am going to try and debunk in this article are the following:

1. I choose not to be vegan

2. I am an animal lover but not vegan

3. I could never be vegan but good on you for being one, we need more people like you!

Choice to murder:

By saying that one has decided not to be vegan simply implies that one made a conscious decision to forgo a vegan lifestyle because one believes eating meat is a more sustainable means of living. The way which this phrase comes off is that the person in question has made a moral decision to eat and consume animal products. They understand that suffering and cruelty are being imposed onto animals that do not wish to die, and they willfully continue on their lifestyles knowing that. This argument in itself stands on a shaky foundation because the essence of consuming animal products has been normalized in society for eons. From childhood to adulthood, people consume animal products without much thought. A mixture of social conditioning and habitude formulate a normalized viewpoint, where animal products are just another component of life. The disassociation between the animal and the food/product is apparent in all stages of life in humans. It is interesting that some might even imply that humans are supposed to lead an omnivorous lifestyle, yet they themselves would be brought to tears if they see animals die or suffer. To choose to adopt a lifestyle that is based upon suffering and cruelty is to consciously say that one rejects any form of empathy towards the animals that one consumes. That their existence is merely to satisfy one’s desires, rather than out of necessity to survive.

People tend to argue that their craving for animal products might stem from the taste of such products, but can this be morally justified?

If one were to argue that they cannot be vegan because of the taste of steak for instance, would that justify the death of a cow? If one were to say that they have a craving for dogs, would that justify the death of a dog? And finally, if one were to say that they have a craving for human flesh, would that justify cannibalism to satisfy their taste?

These questions in themselves hold a moral dilemma because taste can be attributed to the consumption of any kind of animal. But if one believes that their personal taste is their personal choice, are they then wrong? Can someone be blamed for eating dogs for example because they like the taste? Ultimately this ends up being a strawman fallacy because a meat eater could easily say that a dog eater is deranged for eating dogs, and a dog eater could easily say that a meat eater is deranged for befriending a dog.

The argument of choosing not to be vegan is not a choice one gets to make. Depending on one’s society and culture, it has already been made for them. Some cultures are so rooted in the consumption of animals that an attack on the cuisine for instance, would be an attack on the culture. In Jordan, where I come from, Islam is a part of the culture. Eid-al-Adha (عيد الاضحى) is a celebration of sacrifice. The sacrificial sheep or goat is sent to the slaughter in order to feed the poor. An attack, or a mere alteration of such an event, would disrupt a major part of the culture and offend believers of the religion. Even if people of the religion do adopt veganism, how would they be able to practice their religion without celebrating a holiday that has been a part of a traditional culture for almost two millennia?

The choice of not being vegan is synonymous to upholding a social and normalized condition of seeing animal products as consumables. In China for instance, the Yuling festival revolves around the murder of dogs for food. Interestingly enough, Western media and societies have tried to end this festival because it does not consolidate with their “righteous” viewpoints. The same people who shout morals are the ones who order steak for their dinner, so it would be best not to blame someone else because they chose to eat an animal that you play fetch with.

In the end, culture and society play a leading role in shaping one’s perception on the animals that they decide to consume, while taste plays a more minor role. Vegan cuisine is very tasty and abundant with variety, making it very easy to cook and prepare amazing dishes. And in recent times, vegan alternatives have reached peak deliciousness in terms of their taste, look and feel, for those who are transitioning, are craving a burger or just feel like treating themselves.

Love one, Eat another:

Animal lover is a phrase that is commonly used a lot to set a notion that one can create a formidable bond with animals because they have a deep, rooted appreciation and empathy towards them. They might save stray animals, adopt a pet, and love playing and petting all kinds of furry friends. But the harsh reality is, many animal lovers only love certain kinds of animals. I am not questioning the love that animal lovers have towards animals, but what they categorically define as animals are definitely not the ones on their plates. The animal lovers that I have met choose to love one animal and consume another. I believe that the definition of animal extends beyond what society considers as pets or non-human animals. Cows, sheep and pigs can make great pets and friends, yet society neglects this fact because they are seen as commodities. Cows form strong bonds with each other and have a great sense of awareness. Pigs are extremely intelligent, even smarter than dogs and can be very great companions. Some people nowadays are adopting pigs because of these apparent feats. Sheep can recognize different individuals and can form close bonds with their human companions just as the aforementioned animals.

Animals are placed into three categories: Pet, Food and Pest.

I reference Melanie Joy’s book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows a lot in my articles because it highlights how we as humans attribute certain notions of empathy towards animals depending on the social conditioning behind that animal. A good example of an animal that shares all three categories are rabbits. They can be considered as pets, as food and as pests. The animal itself has not changed, but the perception of it has. And thus strikes an interesting perspective of why social conditioning matters when it comes to loving animals. The idea of loving animals can only be limited up to a certain point. Speaking for myself, I heavily dislike mosquitos but love spiders. So even as a vegan for instance, it is impossible to empathize with every single animal. But the general aspect of being vegan is that one ejects themselves from the industrial cycle of cruelty and abuse towards animals whose sole considered purpose is to satisfy consumer taste. The idea that every life is born equally, and that one should not transgress another’s wellbeing based upon societal or personal motives, constitutes a vegan agenda.

If one calls themselves an animal lover yet consumes animal products, then the question of their validity should be placed at stake. Maybe an alteration of “animal lover” would suit the person’s qualifying traits. Words like “dog lover” and “cat lover” are much more suitable to express one’s emotions geared towards these animals because they do not cause them harm. Encompassing all animals under an umbrella term creates a dissonance between what is construed as an animal and what is misinterpreted as a product.

Moral Ground:

Is there a moral hierarchy in general? Can one define themselves as morally superior because they are vegan? My answer is a yes and a no. It is a yes because the person understands their contribution in the world, and that they have taken measures to limit their harmful impact on the animal industry. However, they are also not morally superior because some carnists could be either conditioned to a certain notion, or unaware of the damage they are causing, albeit to themselves, the planet and the animals. If a vegan is commended for being vegan by a carnist who cannot see themselves as vegan, a point should be made. Appreciation and admiration are exalted onto the vegan from a limiting belief because the carnist sees the reality of veganism as a farfetched utopia. This all boils down to education. Many vegans were carnists, and they took it upon themselves to cause a change in their lives. A self-limiting belief can only be self-limiting if it does not manifest into reality. One has to understand that they are an individual within a complex, and collective superstructure, and that their day to day decisions can affect another person either willingly or unwillingly. The choice of opting out of animal products is a physical and a very real choice. Consumerism is what drives the animal industry, and by removing a “need”, the notion of a “supply” will diminish.

Final thoughts:

The process of becoming vegan is a gradual one that requires investment, time and research. The blossoming of the connection in one’s mind has to come from a place of understanding that one’s actions matter in the world. I feel that the three points that I have argued for in this blog article either stem from one of three things: social conditioning, unawareness or plausible deniability and a lack of self-belief that change comes from within the individual that manifests into the collective. The idea that one group of people can adopt a vegan lifestyle seems surreal for some, but this can all be changed if they truly formed the connection within. Just because cruelty and murder do not happen in front of our eyes, that does not mean that they do not happen behind closed doors. Society and cultural traditions play a pivotal role in masking cruelty as norms. The question of allowing another specie to coexist without its exploitation is not a matter of importance in many parts of the world that have deeply rooted norms of animal exploitation. I am very sure that if humans stopped exploiting animals, they would eventually stop exploiting themselves — which should happen first is another topic of discussion. And finally, love is only quantifiable and qualifiable by the lover. Loving an animal yet exploiting another is not a form of unconditional love. The word “animal lover” has been unwillingly and subconsciously hijacked by those whose love is not universal. Loving chicken and then eating nuggets does not validate your love if you are a part of cyclical exploitation. To come to grips with the term love is to not promote hate, and the animal industry is built upon the hate and cruelty against vulnerable species that have a will to life just like us.