• Veganism acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all life. It rejects any hierarchy of acceptable
suffering among sentient creatures. It is no more acceptable to torment or kill creatures with "primitive nervous systems" than those with "highly developed nervous systems". The value of life to its possessor is the same, whether it be the life of a clam, a crayfish, a carp, a cockroach, a cow, a chicken, or a child.
Source
*
I honestly think bundled statements like these, if widely accepted by those practicing a vegan diet, open up the term, as so defined, to ridicule. Here’s my take on it:
-
“Veganism acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all life.” -
At base starting point, yes. Certain contexts change my perception of equal value, however. A multiple murdering psychopath has less intrinsic legitimacy to his/her life than someone who does not commit these crimes. We put these people in jail (suffering) or kill them when it is necessary to protect others ‘intrinsic legitimacy’ to their own lives.
-
“It rejects any hierarchy of acceptable suffering among sentient creatures.” -
I reject this statement out of hand. The reason is very simple, as it rejects commonly accepted ethics and replaces them with a notion in which the following could occur: 3 hungry lions about to starve (suffering) may well be served if I threw my neighbor to them for a meal. This causes suffering to the individual but if they are in all other ways equal then it serves the greatest number (the lions). This action would also be deemed to be murder among most people, and rightly so. If someone actually believes this has served a greater good, I think it makes them very very VERY scary person to identify with, much less travel the wild with.
-
” It is no more acceptable to torment or kill creatures with "primitive nervous systems" -
than those with "highly developed nervous systems". -
If this statement didn’t include the word “torment”, then I would also reject it out of hand. I do not believe it is ever acceptable to torment with malicious intentions (nor absent that, in almost every case, at all). However, it is entirely acceptable to kill when it is needed to do so, particularly, for survival. I also don’t think anyone in a situation with a dangerous human, animal (or insect) can also practice it against their base instinct to survive, without some greater purpose (than the statement) in mind.
-
“The value of life to its possessor is the same, whether it be the life of a clam, a crayfish, a carp, a cockroach, a cow, a chicken, or a child. Source” -
Not necessarily so. Just ask anyone what they think of their life in the moments before suicide. The assumption of any entities views on it’s own life is just that, an assumption.
If Veganism is defined by that statement (and all Vegans agreed to it), then I would happily call myself something else and know that Watson’s greatest nightmares of what Veganism could become would be manifest. A world where the Compassion Police exercise against their own species in favor of other species. A rabid dog, a dangerous spider, snake, or natural carnivore would never be persecuted for doing what they do, but a human who killed one to serve himself or another human would be subject to “species ism” because of their own need for survival. It would be sort of a religion for misanthropes, and a dangerous one at that.
“Necessary or not” is how I differentiate between what is ethical and moral in the question of killing. If I am in contact with any animal or insect (or human) where I can be reasonably sure they pose a serious threat to my life, then I have no qualms with ending their life. Except in certain special situations, eating animals/insects is never necessary, so it is therefore unethical to kill them in order to consume them.
There is a world of difference between the two.
