User:Kellen/Veganism

Ethics
The central ethical question related to veganism is whether it is right for humans to use and kill animals. This question is essentially the same as the fundamental question of animal rights, so it has been animal rights ethicists who have articulated the philosophical foundations for veganism. The philosophical discussion also therefore reflects the division viewpoints within animal rights theory between a rights-based approach, taken by both Tom Regan and Gary Francione, and a utilitarian one, promoted by Peter Singer. Vegan advocacy organizations generally adhere to some form animal rights viewpoint, and oppose practices which violates these rights.

Philosophical foundations
Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, argues that animals are entities which possess "inherent value" and therefore have "basic moral rights," and that the principal moral right they possess is "the right to respectful treatment." Regan additionally argues that animals have a "basic moral right not to be harmed," which can be overridden only when the individual's right not to be harmed is "morally outweighed" by "other valid moral principles." From this "rights view," Regan argues that "animal agriculture, as we know it, is unjust" even when animals are raised "humanely." Regan argues against various justifications for eating meat including that "animal flesh is tasty," that it is "habit" for "individuals and as a culture", that it is "convenient," that "meat is nutritious," that there is an obligation the economic interests of farmers or to the economic interests of a country, or that "farm animals are legal property," and finds that all fail to treat animals with the respect due to them by their basic rights. Regan therefore argues that "those who support current animal agriculture by purchasing meat have a moral obligation to stop doing so" and that "the individual has a duty to lead a vegetarian way of life."

Gary L. Francione, professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, argues that animals are sentient, and that this is sufficient to grant them moral consideration. Francione argues that "all sentient beings should have at least one right&mdash;the right not to be treated as property" and that there is "no moral justification for using nonhumans for our purposes." Francione further argues that adopting veganism should be regarded as the "baseline" action taken by people concerned with animal rights.

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, argues that there is "no moral justification" for refusing to take sentient animal suffering into consideration in ethical decisions. Singer argues that an animal's interests warrant equal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is "speciesist." Based upon his evaluation of these interests, Singer argues that "our use of animals for food becomes questionable&mdash;especially when animal flesh is a luxury rather than a necessity." Singer does not contend that killing animals is always wrong, but that from a practical standpoint it is "better to reject altogether the killing of animals for food, unless one must do so to survive." Singer therefore advocates both veganism and improved conditions for farm animals as practical means to reduce animal suffering.

Advocacy organizations
Vegan advocacy organizations often consider that animals have some form of rights, and that it is not ethical to use animals in ways that infringe those rights. The Vegan Society, for example, maintains that "animals have the right not to be farmed," Vegan Action asserts that "animals are not ours to use," PETA states that "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment," and Mercy for Animals writes that "non-human animals are irreplaceable individuals with morally significant interests and hence rights."

Advocacy organizations see practices such as factory farming,  animal testing, and displaying animals for entertainment in circuses, rodeos, and zoos as cruel to animals.

Criticisms
Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, has argued that following Tom Regan's "least harm principle" may not necessarily require the adoption of a vegan diet. Davis suggested that there were non-vegetarian diets which "may kill fewer animals" than are killed in the intensive crop production necessary to support vegetarian diets. However, Gaverick Matheny, a Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics at the University of Maryland, College Park, countered that Davis' reasoning contained several major flaws, including miscalculating the number of animal deaths based on land area rather than per consumer, and incorrectly equating "the harm done to animals […] to the number of animals killed." Matheny argued that per-consumer, a vegan diet would kill fewer wild animals than a diet adhering to Davis' model. He also argued that vegetarianism "involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."

Davis's argument has also been criticized by Andy Lamey, a PhD student at the University of Western Australia, who re-examined the empirical studies Davis used to calculate animal crop production deaths. Lamey notes that many of the animal deaths Davis attributed to harvesting technology were actually caused by other animals, calling into question his overall estimate.

William Jarvis, writing for the Nutrition & Health Forum newsletter, attacks "ideologic vegetarians," whom he claims believe that "all life is sacred" and that "all forms of life have equal value," saying that these beliefs "can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises."