To what extremes, O vegan? (part 2)

In part 1 I explored the historical backdrop to veganism in the West, in particular that most ruthless of vegan religions, Jainism.  Today, I now turn to the question of vegan extremism itself.  Specifically, I’m curious as to the logic of veganism: whether it is thorough enough or too much.

I personally have been very influenced by the ethical systems of kosher and halal.  These ethical-nutritional systems take the view that fundamentally Man must devour animals in order to survive, but this must be done humanely.

Now, while the reality of kosher and halal have fallen far from the ideal, I can nevertheless conceive how their basic approach potentially sets the stage for the logic of veganism among Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers:

• if (a) the humane treatment of livestock is the goal,
• but (b) that goal is rendered impossible by the avaricious nature of our current industrial-capitalist system,
• then (c) veganism is therefore the (arguably) only resort left to the nutrionally ethical monotheist.

However, this interpretation of kosher and halal leaves open the possibility that one day livestock can indeed be slaughtered humanely.  Thus, they beg the question posed by the vegan approach, that is, can butchering ever be humane, in any system?

But while vegans confront this question head-on, do they run the risk of becoming ensared in their own logic?

When doing no harm does harm

According to vegans’ own logic, the “truest” vegan is one who is willing to renounce human society itself.

Human civilization is literally the product of animals.  Disregarding leather- and wool-based goods, as well as honey and dairy foods, the renunciation of which vegans are already well-known, consider these not-so-obvious/far-more-important things that a true vegan would have to forsake:

• writing (ink is commonly extracted from mollusks);
• music (string instruments are commonly gotten from the hair of horses and other animals);
• science (medicine relies upon animals for testing purposes, and the United States would never have dared send a man to the moon were it not for a chimpanzee); most of all –
• cities (which rely upon farms to supply their needs, the produce of which is gained by the blood and sweat of animals).

Taraben Chovatia, 78, rests as she undergoes the Jain practice of Santhara or voluntary death by fasting. At what point in the attempt to do no harm do we do harm?

There is also the problem of time and origins.  For example, should a vegan drive a car, use plastic-based synthetics, or for that matter, use electricity?  Plastic comes from petrol, and petrol comes from oil, is the liquidized remains of biomass from prehistoric times, including dinosaurs.  Coal provides not escape for the vegan, either, since it too is essentially biomass.

Indeed, the concept of biomass raises a key problem, namely, are there some forms of organic life that are ethically devourable by a vegan, and if so, how according to what measure?

The most common method used by vegans is determining the presence or absence of a central nerve system.  According to this method, the less self-aware and pain-experiencing a critter, the more edible it becomes.  It is for this reason that several kinds of yeast are acceptable to both Western and Indian vegans, and even most beers (except Guiness — sorry Melissa!), although alcohol tends to be strictly prohibited in the Jain community.

However, if we are to take the arguments of Peter Singer (originator of the concept “specism“) to their utmost serious, then, as the Jain prayer goes, all organic life should be held sacred and inviolable, even bacteria and plants.

The Jains were anti-specists long before Singer even thought of the idea.  A particularly devoted sect of Jain monks, realizing what they are up against to be truly vegan, have decided to completely remove themselves from the intricacies of urban human existence and live naked, wandering as vagrants.

Devoted, if not courageous, as these monks doubtlessly are, there exists another sect of monks who trump them!  This second sect wears masks and use brooms to sweep the earth preceding wherever they tread, so as to not harm any microscopic life.  Moreover, they also insist upon eating only the boiled remains of plants that have died naturally.

The monk Shradha Sri apparently hailed from this second sect.  She committed the sacred rite of sallekhana (santhara), the act of starving oneself to death.  Her self-sacrifice, while awesome, is also a reminder of the dark central paradox within vegan logic:

If the basic principle of veganism is essentially Hippocratic — “Do no harm” — then eventually a vegan would collide headlong with a dangerous logical contradiction: in order to do no harm, he or she must themselves die, but in killing themselves they are doing harm!

With that, I close part 2 of this blog series.  In the third and final part I will turn to the matter of whether, the necessary extremism of vegan logic aside, veganism itself is necessary to live ethically in capitalist American society.  My answer may surprise you!