Oct 10, 2020. Updated: Apr 7, 2023.

The Cruelty of Vegetarianism

Any discussions as to whether humans are herbivorous or omnivorous will never yield results because some determinants like ethics, cruelty and morality cannot be empirically proven or serve as objective metrics. Even if they do, one might just choose to enjoy unhealthy food knowing and accepting that it is unhealthy, but for its taste. The best we can do is to discuss the arguments of both sides and leave food habits to the individual subject to its ecological consequences.

This posts now discusses only the moral aspect of vegetarianism. The health and ecological aspects have been moved to two improved articles.

• Animal and Plant Based Proteins
• Vegetarianism

***

There is an argument that the case of cruelty in animal slaughter doesn't hold anymore because science now proves that plants also respond to threatening stimuli, and therefore, killing plants for food is cruelty too. After much deliberation, it can be concluded theat there is no such thing as cruelty in the case of plants, but there is such a thing as cruelty in the case of animals.

Indeed, a life is taken in both cases, but do not judge cruelty based on whether a life is taken or not. Cruelty is an emotion that is felt while observing an incident or reflecting on it later; it is not an emotion felt by any of the participants of the incident. In any cruel incident, the giver experiences anger, aggression, sadism etc. while the receiver experiences pain, agony, shame etc. It is the watcher who feels the emotion of cruelty. It is the expression of pain and agony by the receiver that registers in the brain of the watcher that gets interpreted as cruelty. This can be demonstrated with a thought experiment.

Imagine someone casually hitting a tree with a stick or chopping it down with an axe. You would not feel uncomfortable, anger or disgust watching it — some of the emotions one feel while witnessing cruelty. On the other hand, consider that it was a dog or a cat beaten and slashed to death. Assuming that you are not a sadist, you certainly would feel these emotions of cruelty. The reason for the difference in your response is because you could register the expressions of pain by the animal but could not register the tree's response.

The knowledge that plants respond when attacked or threatened cannot contribute to cruelty because knowledge is not an emotion; and knowing that plants responds when attacked is an intellectual experience, not an emotional experience. Because cruelty is an emotional experience, our killing of plants despite the knowledge that plants' react cannot be termed as cruelty. 'Wilful action' could be a more apt word; certainly not 'cruelty'.

But consider, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as plant cruelty. The question now to ponder is, whether plant cruelty is equally abominable as animal cruelty. My say in this matter can be conveyed in three points. First: if plant cruelty exists, the fact that humans can register animal expressions, have the knowledge that they are inflicting pain and agony to the animals, and yet inflicts them makes animal cruelty more abominable than plant cruelty. This is the same deduction humans use to determine that acts of child labour, custody torture and lynching are cruel — because they can imagine what the victim went through and register their expressions of pain and agony.

Secondly, the fact that animals are man's next to kin at a species level, yet he kills them when everything needed can be procured from plants, makes animal cruelty more abominable than plant cruelty. Animals are humans' next to kin because they share more or less the same biology. Between plants and animals, if man must save one, it is rational and justifiable¹ to save the animal because of this kinship, much like a parent would save her child than someone else's when there is room for only one.

Thirdly, for us, killing a plant happens to be a survival necessity for food whereas killing an animal isn't unless under certain conditions. The fact that we still do it makes animal cruelty more abominable than plant cruelty. Between plants and animals, plants are indispensable to man as he cannot live on animal based diet exclusively. Therefore, in places where plants grow, slaughtering animals have no justifications as they are done to merely satisfy our taste buds.

The third point is scientific while the first two points are philosophical. The truth is, it does not matter whether these points make sense, but whether anyone would find it necessary to think to this extent just to get an unpleasant answer to not eat meat.