Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations

1344 readers

3 users here now

The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Veganism and materialism (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After reading some discussion on lemmygrad about veganism, I felt the need to share my thoughts in a separate thread, as comments weren't appropriate for the wall of text I'm about to throw.

Before we start, very important precision. This is not about environmental veganism, only about animal-liberation veganism. Consuming less animal products will be a lifestyle change we must anticipate to limit environmental destruction. This is about the moral philosophy of veganism and its contradictions with materialism.

Intro

Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.

Now, I must say, if one is to contest the validity of this syllogism as a basis for veganism I encourage them to provide one since it could drastically change my point of view.

Like many syllogisms, there is appeal and validity to it until you question the premises. Let's review them under a materialistic lens.

Morality and materialism

The first premise is that it is immortal to kill and exploit humans. As leftists, we tend to wholeheartedly agree with such a statement, as it encapsulates our ambitions and dreams, however this cannot be pursued for a political manifest beyond utopian wishful thinking. Historically, killing has been justified as a high moral act whenever the one being killed was deemed worthy of death. The reason it is generally considered immoral to interrupt one's life is because humans simply have to collaborate to survive, therefore every society has developed a social construct that allows us to live as a social productive species. But whenever a war enemy, criminal, or dissident person is being killed under certain circumstances, the killing becomes justified, morally right.

As materialists, we don't base our interpretation of morality on a notion of some metaphysical, reality-transcending rule, and even less in relation to an afterlife. Morality is a human construct that evolves with material conditions. In that case, the relationship of human morality with non-human animals becomes more complicated than it seems. Humans do have empathy for other species but are also able to consume their flesh and products, a contradiction that has defined the construction of morality around non-human animals through history. This explains why it seems desirable for a lot of people to stop unnecessary animal cruelty while still wanting to consume their flesh, there is an act of balancing between empathy and appetite.

Equality of species and violence

Now you might have noticed that this framework is definitely human-centric. That brings us to the second premise, which is the equality of all species. By all means, it is absolutely outdated to maintain the idea of "human superiority" on all non-human species in the current times. As materialists, we should realise that humans evolved at the same time as other species, are dependent on the ecosystem, and that there is no fundamental variable that we have to consider as a criteria for ranking in an abstract "order of things".

That said, the equality of all species doesn't automatically mean the disappearance of inter-species violence. Firstly, we cannot stop unnecessary violence between fellow living beings that don't share our means of communication (unless we exerce physical control over them, but that's even worse). Secondly, there is an assumption that only humans possess the ability to choose to follow a vegan diet, which is extremely strange considering that it makes humans the only specie to have the capacity to be moral. Either non-human animals are excused for their chauvinistic violence against other species because they are seen as too limited, determined by their instinct, but it makes humans actually morally superior to other species. Or the animals must be held accountable for inter-species violence, which no vegan upholds, thankfully. Last option would be to consider that inter-species violence is part of life, which I agree with and think is the materialistic approach, but that means there is no reason to adopt a vegan diet.

Conclusion

So what does that let us with? Morality being a social construct with a material use in a human society, and humans being fundamentally empathetic, it is completely understandable that society will be progressing towards diminishing meat consumption to allow the minimization of animal suffering. But the exploitation of animals as means of food production doesn't have a materialistic reason to go away (unless we're talking about climate change, of course). The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like any other.

This is mostly why I would discourage pushing people to abandon all animal products in the name of ethics. What should be encouraged is acceptance of every specific diet, be it religious diets, or animal-liberation diets. Strict vegetarianism must be a choice of heart that is based on profound empathy, not a superior moral choice or, worse, a moral imperative.

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I do think that in the current mode of production is an unsustainable amount of meat. I'm not opposed to meat in of itself and I think have meat produced from sustainable grazing, but that would lead to an overall reduction in meat consumption. I've read a bit on how the plains natives of Turtle Island did produce meat of buffalo for centuries, perhaps millennia, till the settlers came. They maintained the land so that buffalo could graze.

There is a reason that the settlers of turtle island mass slaughtered the Buffalo herds in the west in order to subjugate them to a more capitalist unsustainable mode of agriculture, which lead to massive fires and the dustbowl in the west side of Turtle Island(United States). Even today, not all land is arable for crop agriculture, but still has pleanty of grasslands that can use less water than avocados, almonds, wheat and rice.

I wouldn't say that going vegan or vegetarian is a bad thing to to as an individual. I'm just not entirely convinced that it meaningfully changes our food system. I perhaps could agree with you that abolishing factory farms, also change land use to not make so much animal feed in order to feed more people. I suspect that peoples with histories of pre capitalist food production should be given BLM land.

Unfortunately, in order to do any of that we'll most likely need to seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie state.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.

I would like to argue that point because I'm having a problem with it. I don't think "equal" is the adequate term here, it's very broad and vague. Some people are tall, some are short. Some are strong, some are weak. Not every human is equal, so of course not every animal is equal. It may be right to say that they are, but it's necessary to precise in what way. Maybe "equal in their ability to feel" would be appropriate.

Secondly, the syllogism you present assumes that the moral consideration extended to animals should directly correlate with the treatment of humans. However, many vegans, including myself, base our views not on comparison with human treatment but on the intrinsic value of animal lives. We believe that exploiting animals is wrong primarily because they are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain, sadness, fear, and even depression. Your syllogism is focused on the physical form of the individuals, but that's not what we think about.

An important point that we vegans advocate for is not justifying exploitation based on physical attributes. We believe it's not acceptable to exploit someone because their skin is dark, or because they have female genitalia, or because they have hooves. The value of an individual extends beyond mere physical characteristics. Our moral perspective posits that inflicting intentional harm on sentient beings purely for our pleasure is ethically wrong. If a chair were sentient, hypothetically, it would deserve similar considerations.

So, if you want to use a syllogism, the correct one would be as follow: It is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings; humans and non-human animals are sentient beings; therefore, it is immoral to cause harm to and exploit both human and non-human animals.

The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like any other.

I understand your point, but I don't think an appeal to nature is a very productive type of argument. Our whole existence revolves around surpassing nature, that's why we plant crops, harvest them with motorized tools, live in brick houses, etc... There is a reason the definition of natural is "as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people".

Moreover, many societal rules explicitly contradict what might be considered "natural" behavior. For instance, despite murder and rape occurring in the animal kingdom, human societies have made such actions illegal. Hence, relying on what's "natural" as a guidepost for morality doesn't seem consistent with the progression of our civilizations.

I think that as leftists, we should strive to abolish any kind of ideology that preaches the unjust discrimination and exploitation of others based on their physical attributes, whether it be speciesism, carnism, racism, sexism, ableism, and so on...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your point on the first is wrong because communists kill only when there is no other choice. We kill in a revolution because we don't control the prisons. Why kill the animals then? They are not cops, they are not imperial soldiers, they are not bourgeois or aristocrats. Farm animals don't pose any danger to us.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

You cannot just compare as 1:1 the societal relations during a revolution and the human consumption of meat. We do not kill and eat animals because we think they pose a danger to us. As the original post says, our relations to other species are defined socially and largely determined by our material reality - consider the difference of pets, working animals or food animals, or even non-animal species. Again, these relations are different in different human societies.

For millions of years humans have eaten other animals and plants. For most of history humans didn't moralize about this, they just did what they had to to survive and ate what they could get their hands on. As our societies developed, and we started practicing agriculture, our diets changed and most people ate a largely more uniform plant-based diet. In modern times the meat industry developed to a massive extent under capitalism. Most people today eat meat simply because it is there and accessible, and importantly, good alternatives are not present everywhere. Diets are also not uniform in today's world and we shouldn't take a western-centric view and abstract it onto every society on the planet.

Any such individual choices, as we know, don't have impact on the system and communists certainly don't preach about individual morality. If our material conditions change and we develop in a way that reduces the meat industry (which can probably only happen in a socialist society) our diets will change along with it and because of it - even our societal moral relations to these animals might change with this. However, we cannot force these changes in reverse order due to moral considerations. Not to mention that more humane and sustainable farming practices would be much easier to implement under socialism with the priority of the food industry being to feed people and not to make a profit.

We as Marxists can certainly be vegetarian or vegan, but preaching veganism as a moral good is not compatible with Marxism, and the idealistic, liberal ideology and political movements of veganism - which just presuppose any use of animal products in the abstract as moral wrongs and are thus quite chauvinistic in their expression - are not compatible with Marxism. We don't want to impose these concepts onto people from above and plenty of human societies consume and have consumed meat in environmentally sustainable ways. The problems here are those of agricultural and industrial practices which are problems due to capitalism, and not due to eating meat or using animal products as such.