Are Producers and Consumers of Animal Products Criminals?!

Reflections from the Perspective of Moral Philosophy

Hadi Hakim Shafaei Graduate of International Law and Researcher in Animal Philosophy and Law

By examining the educational-promotional texts and the arguments of some advocates of veganism on social networks, it can be shown that there are three fundamental flaws in the arguments and approaches of some animal rights activists and defenders of veganism:

1. An aggressive and polemical approach, especially in reaction to the aggressive or insulting behaviors of some carnivores 2. A non-philosophical, anti-epistemological, and emotional approach in moral judgments 3. An undesirable and unfounded defense of desirable and well-founded ideas

In many of these promotional contents, the compilers adopt an emotional stance against the radical, mocking, and sometimes insulting reactions of some carnivores, and instead of introducing ideas and presenting scientific evidence and philosophical arguments in defense of veganism, they themselves resort to aggressive literature and try to react with polemical and emotional terms. It seems that this polemical literature will not only fail to have a positive impact on the audience but will probably weaken the ideas claimed by veganism. This writing analyzes the second flaw in the approaches and arguments of veganism supporters.

One of the significant flaws of promoters of the vegan lifestyle is the non-philosophical and emotion-oriented approach. An emotional and non-philosophical approach in moral judgments weakens the foundation of desirable ideas. For example, activists of the veganism movement sometimes address carnivores as criminals and the like. In order to validate the proposition that 'carnivores or consumers of animal products are criminals,' the concept of crime and its components must first be analyzed and scrutinized.

If crime is defined as inflicting severe harm on the integrity of body and mind, and agreement is reached on this definition, two components must be considered for this concept:

1. The material or physical component, which expresses the physical behavior of the harming individual. 2. The non-material or mental component, which is the intent and awareness of the harming individual regarding the suffering that has been created.

Therefore, for a behavior to be considered a crime, in addition to the existence of severely harmful behavior, the intent and awareness of the harmfulness of the behavior must also be realized. Regarding the material component of crime, there is not much difference in the relationship between humans and other animals compared to the relationship between humans and humans, and in both situations, harmful and painful behavior or behaviors occur against humans and against animals. However, regarding the non-material component of crime, the issue becomes complicated. The relationship between two humans cannot be considered identical to the relationship between a human and an animal because in the relationship between humans, the harming individual knows directly, evidently, and without a shred of doubt that the victim is severely harmed and suffering, but in the relationship between humans and other animals, for reasons that will follow, the perception of the realization of suffering and harm in the harming human's understanding often faces obstacles and is not so evident and tangible.

In the modern world in which we live, it seems that prejudices based on race, color, gender, ethnicity, etc., have been decreasing compared to the distant past, and most humans, of any race, gender, ethnicity, and religion, feel a greater sense of commonality with one another, at least in being human. We can consider this claim as certain, at least in comparison to the relationship between humans and other animals and in terms of a sense of commonality, because in the relationship between humans and other animals, there are great and deep-rooted obstacles to human perception and judgments. It must be said that we live in a deeply speciesist world, and social intuitions show that the majority of humans probably consider themselves as beings separate from other living creatures; beings that had a special origin or creation and have traversed a completely different path. The conclusion that humans draw from this belief in special separateness will be that humans are the noblest of creatures and therefore the absolute owners of the right to dominate other animals.

Therefore, humans today are, in the first place, caught up in a set of traditional, historical, and theological assumptions that have been instilled in their minds since childhood and do not change easily. In the second place, to these traditional, historical, and theological assumptions, one must also add medical-health guidelines and prescriptions, which themselves arise from the intellectual paradigm governing conventional medical traditions and practices. Although many reputable nutritional organizations and associations emphasize the adequacy of vegan diets, provided they are properly planned, conventional medical practices have often not been reformed.

These practices and guidelines are based on speciesism and the exaggeration of the importance of omnivorous nutrition. Moreover, in the third place, there is the magical role of commercial advertising by the dairy and livestock industries and companies in brainwashing minds. The role of these false advertisements in shaping the mythical and exaggerated belief in the benefits of meat and milk and creating a sense of health anxiety in humans can never be ignored. Thus, human minds have been exposed to false or exaggerated beliefs from three directions since childhood, and when humans slaughter an animal or produce or consume meat and animal products, they often do not feel guilt or a troubled conscience, and perhaps no conception of suffering even forms in their minds.

Therefore, by examining the violation of the fundamental rights of non-human animals from the perspective of the realization of the non-material element of crime, it seems that the general population of humans who slaughter and those who produce, distribute, or consume animal products cannot be considered criminals in a general ruling, because the mental element of crime against sentient beings—which is awareness of harm and intent to cause suffering—is ambiguous and not fully realized in the case of most humans. The threefold obstacles mentioned cause humans either to have no understanding of the animal's suffering and harm, or a false sense of vital necessity and need, along with a sense of insecurity, causes them to deliberately disrupt their own moral suffering-awareness system! With the above arguments, it seems the only charge attributable to the general population of humans who produce and consume animal products is unawareness or a disruption in the awareness system.

Another reason that can be offered to refute the title of criminal for producers and consumers of animal products and to affirm the title of unaware in its place is that most humans who deal with animal food products, however much they lack suffering-awareness or emotional feeling and sensitivity towards edible animals or animal feed, behave with extreme sensitivity and emotion towards non-edible animals such as dogs, cats, and the like. This shows that in matters of food, clothing, entertainment, and decoration, historical, traditional, theological factors, medical-health practices, and commercial advertising are heavily involved and have halted the process of suffering-awareness and acceptance of realities, or have made it extremely difficult.

On the other hand, even assuming the attainment of awareness and acceptance of the theoretical foundations of animal liberation by humans, abandoning incorrect historical habits and traditions requires possessing a will directed towards lifestyle change, and this is not possible except through continuous education, the constant observation of practical and successful models of a lifestyle compatible with animal liberation and environmental health, and the step-by-step practice of a new life. Findings in psychological science show that humans often strongly resist abandoning habits, and the thought of abandoning previous habits and acquiring new ones makes them feel insecure. Therefore, the abolition of speciesism and the realization of a world without animal exploitation is a great moral ideal that shows the long-term prospect of the animal liberation movement in the distant centuries of the future. Thus, the acceptance of the gradual nature of changes, emphasis on the role of each individual human in reducing cruelty to animals and the environment, and the importance of continuous, non-confrontational explanation and enlightenment must be taken seriously as three fundamental principles of activism for animal liberation activists.

در مجموع، می‌توان چنین عنوان نمود که اگرچه بسیاری از فلاسفه اخلاق[1] معتقدند نقض حقوق بنیادین حیواناتِ غیرانسان، چه در فرایند تولید و توزیع و چه در فرایند مصرف، مصداق جنایت علیه جاندارانِ حساس است و غیراخلاقی اما نگارنده، ضمن تاییدِ غیراخلاقی بودنِ اعمال یادشده، بر این باور است که انتساب عنوان جنایتکار به عاملانِ این اعمال و فرایندها به دلیلِ عدمِ تحققِ کامل مولفه‌ی آگاهی، موجه نیست. ترویج‌کنندگان وگنیسم با ترک رویکرد عاطفه‌محورِ صرف و با اتخاذ رسالت تبیین و کنار گذاشتن مشی مجاب‌سازی، به نظر می‌رسد نتیجه بهتری در مسیر توسعه‌ی اندیشه‌ی حقوق و آزادی حیوانات خواهند گرفت.

[1] 1- سینگر، پیتر.(۱۴۰۲). آزادی حیوانات. نشر ققنوس

ریگان، تام.(۱۳۹۸).حق حیوان، خطای انسان. نشر کرگدن