Ethics and Aesthetics.
Or, in other words, why Veganism is a thing.
Before reading this article, please take a look at the article Douglas Giles PhD wrote on the specific topic of Veganism. I was planning on writing about that topic, but he did it better than I ever could.
Instead, today’s article is a follow-up on his. Having agreed 100% with what was said there, I’m expanding on it.
Let’s explore Ethics and Aesthetic in general, far beyond Veganism.
I had a vegetarian phase when I was a teenager. It never developed into Veganism proper, but it had its basis on the same aesthetic morals — so I’m a bit of an insider to this phenomenon. This phase didn’t last too long, firstly because my meat-loving mother kept trying to sabotage it, and even overtly told me she didn’t understand wanting to save animals. In fact, she wasn’t against wearing fur — and we didn’t live in a polar region to justify that. Telling her to feel empathy for animals, or people, or anything for that matter, was always akin to talking to a wall. It was only when I came up with the excuse that “fur looks tacky” that she was like, “oh! Why didn’t you tell me earlier?” and finally considered the possibility I would perhaps not accept it in my wardrobe — but that’s a story for another post, and this is a very extreme example of a person completely deprived of emotional empathy. HOWEVER, put a pin on it. We’ll come back to this story later.
(I know I talk about my mother a lot, and, granted, I have trauma; But whatever you think of my “pettiness”, you’ll just have to agree that she’s a useful example of what NOT to do or how not to behave. Consistently. In almost every case. I mean, I don’t even have to invent a fictional evil character; All I have to do is remember her. It’s convenient. Judge me).
The second reason why my vegetarian phase didn’t last long is I started slowly but surely seeing through the movement. I’ve been fascinated with this topic ever since, but it’s only now that I am actually taking the research into Ethics and Aesthetics seriously — hence this article.
Ya know, I have a long history of involvement with Buddhism, ever since my Shaolin training period. (yes, I’m into martial arts. Not your typical oracle lady). The Buddhist community, today (special emphasis on “today”! Put a pin on this too) includes a shit load of vegans and vegetarians. So, I wasn’t without external influences either. Even today, and I would assume, forever (?), people keep asking me why I eat meat and use animal products “without shame”, if I’m a Buddhist. And boy… Let’s just say that this article is for those people. They want an answer? Well, as the saying goes, careful what you wish for.
First of all: the whole idea of “Ethics” assumes that human beings are set apart from the rest of nature.
If you look up the etymology of the word, you’ll find an Ancient Greek root — ethos — meaning “character; personal disposition”. In fact, this Greek word has also been borrowed into English and we use it in the context of psychology, ideology, and even branding. You might be familiar with it already. The idea of ethos hints at intent with basis on abstractions — something non-human animals aren’t capable of. That’s because, in order to engage in abstractions, one must override (or even completely ignore) instinct.
This is why I said in the beginning of the article that I’m expanding on what Dr. Giles said (is it Dr. Giles? Or can I call you Douglas? Sorry, I never asked. Feel free to comment if you’re reading, pal). I like and agree with the argument construed in his article that non-human animals consume fellow animals all the time and therefore this act isn’t inherently unethical. That said… Let me have a bit of a “yes, and” moment here:
Non-human animals act with basis on instinct. They cannot, intentionally, act with basis on Ethics.
I mean, we can go as far as projecting our Ethics onto them… But who is to say they would agree if they had a conscience akin to the one we find in humans? Maybe they wouldn’t. We can’t know. Unless we find a way to experiment with that idea somehow — say, “lending” animals human-like conscience and seeing how they deal with it (basically the whole premise of the Planet of the Apes series) — we can’t, with today’s technology, accurately ascertain that a non-human animal would “in principle object to consuming other animals, but instinct speaks louder”, OR “actually have a moral reason for being okay with consuming other animals”. Let’s be honest, all we can do is imagine which path they’d pick in that crossroads.
Don’t get me wrong, some habits found in both humans and other animals look like Ethics on a surface level… But are in fact survivalist. For example, the fact cannibalism is extremely rare in nature — only some insects, fish and reptiles practice it, and let’s not forget that the majority of insects, fish, and reptiles DO NOT. So, even within these groups, it’s a bit of an anomaly. Why is that? Well, obviously, it’s because cannibalism doesn’t help with reproduction rates and can ultimately lead to extinction. That’s why it’s a taboo for us and for non-human animals alike. It’s not like the taboo on cannibalism was borne out of some abstraction connected to morality and religion. It’s an instinctive drive favouring survival. Or, in other words: it ain’t that deep, kevin. Darwin explains.
We can go further in that discussion and remind ourselves that the few cases of culturally accepted cannibalism in human populations (usually, tribal settings) are usually both ritualistic AND governed by strict rules intended to discourage a widespread practice. I’m not defending it, I hate it, but I’m just saying it’s a form of behaviour borne out of Ethics… NOT instinct.
Love it or hate it, we have an intellect which sets us apart from other life forms. Even though scientifically we belong on planet Earth and can be classified as animals (more specifically, mammal primates), let’s not deny that we are capable of conceptualising codes of Ethics — or, hell, we’re capable of conceptualisation ITSELF; whereas other animals aren’t. This is a feature we rationalise away with religion, and attempt to explain with creation myths where we have been created with some god-like qualities that other animals do not possess.
The above was all to say: we pretend to “be humble and be a part of nature” by sparing animals from consumption, when in fact what we’re doing is displaying our superiority in a veiled and covert manner; “Flexing” on other animals our unique ability to conceptualise and classify specific actions in neat little boxes of morality or immorality… Because if we were like other animals, and acted solely based on instinct, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation to begin with. We’d just, ya know, do our thing, and think nothing of it. Namely: kill to feed ourselves.
So, you see, there’s nothing humble about Veganism. Quite the opposite.
“Oh but that’s such an ‘ugly’ thing, isn’t it”? — that’s what some vegans think when asked about the idea of consuming other animals. Killing is “not very nice”. Not very beautiful or wholesome, if you will. This leads us to the intersection of Ethics and Aesthetics. But before we get into that, let’s take a look at Aesthetics itself:
The irony of Aesthetics is that, unlike Ethics, it brings us closer to the rest of nature — whilst pretending to set us apart on a surface level.
In other words: we aren’t the only beings out there who “judge a book by its cover”. Nature is full of other examples for this behaviour, in fact. Let’s start with the easier, obvious iteration of aesthetic preference: peacocks mating. The females prefer males who look healthier, and in peacock “language”, healthier = having the biggest, most vibrant tail. It’s a huge waste of energy, but it pays off in the end, because of aesthetic selection. It also makes sense, in a weird way: if he can afford to waste all that energy, he’s definitely a strong bird!
A less obvious example of the same phenomenon is, perhaps, some animals’ habit of “playing dead” in order to look unattractive to their predators. If you think about it using only logic, it makes no sense. Why would a predator care whether its prey is dead or alive? Does it really matter that they, and not something else, killed it? Well, the answer to that is aesthetic preference. If your target “looks alive”, you can ensure freshness and safety to eat. On the other hand, if it “looks dead”, god only knows what kind of decomposition is already under way and could prove itself toxic… Or at least not very tasty.
So, as you can see, aesthetic selection isn’t something that usually makes sense straight off the bat — you need to do some “digging” to find the root of the reason why. However, there’s always a reason why. And the aesthetic selection that lives at the root of vegan Ethics is no exception! But let’s not get ahead of ourselves just yet. First, we need to look into…
✨ ❤️ 🌈 Aesthetic Selection in Humans 🌈 ❤️ ✨
First of all, yes, it exists in a literal sense — throw the first stone if you haven’t ever fallen in love with someone just because of the way they look — but literality doesn’t need to be discussed, does it? Let’s look into less obvious iterations of this phenomenon. For example, our obsession with cleanliness. One could say, “oh, but many other beings in nature clean themselves because it wards off parasites-” Yeah, I know, but what is human hygiene compared to a cat licking its fur? We take cleanliness to an extreme. Let’s not deny that. No other animal in nature obsesses so much over it. I’m not saying it’s wrong (in fact I’m all for it, I embrace my humanity, thanks very much. *Opens the deodorant for the 3rd time*), but I’m simply “exposing” here the irony. At the root of our obsession with cleanliness is — among other things— shame.
Yes, you read it right. I’ll say it again: shame.
We feel ashamed of our earthly nature, and that’s the basis of literally every religion. Even animism, I regret to inform. (To a lesser extent, this same kind of shame informs Veganism. We’ll get to that. Hold your horses).
If you ever get close to a human
And human behaviour
You’d better be ready to get confused
*obligatory Bjork vocalising*
There’s definitely, definitely, definitely no logic
To human behaviour
Yes, Bjork. Tell me about it!
Human beings have an idea of sacredness that can’t be separated from transcendence. And our pursuit of transcendence inevitably places a taboo on the ordinary and natural. Rewording it in simple terms: our instinctive animal side is too familiar, and familiarity breeds contempt. We want to transcend and become more god-like instead.
This brings us to:
The whole idea of religious people — Buddhist, for example — not consuming animals pretends to be about moral superiority… When in fact it’s just good old asceticism. And asceticism is usually ego-based because it’s borne out of an urge to “flex” how good you are at resisting temptation. Not that temptations should always overcome us, but you know what I mean, there comes a point when it’s okay to have a bit of pleasure. Life is about balance, not extremes, last time I checked. If you defend asceticism as a way of “living a virtuous life”, no you don’t, you’ve been brainwashed. Allow me to deprogram you: discipline is the word you’re looking for. Asceticism takes discipline to a very unnecessary extreme (like “hygienising” our habits until only the purest and most god-like daily habits remain, as if it was a sin to belong with the animals), and I’ll die on this hill.
The biggest irony is: although we make an effort to set ourselves apart from the “filthy” animals in the jungle, the whole reason WHY we do that is aesthetic selection — a phenomenon which happens throughout nature whether we love it or hate it.
Before anyone mentions that: yes, there have been (many!) philosophical attempts at protesting or countering this phenomenon, beginning with the oldest that we know — the Ancient Greek school of Cynicism, which gave rise to Stoicism — all the way to modern-day (or somewhat modern, at this stage?) Thelema… And whatever the hell furries are doing today. Don’t laugh (or do, lol), these 3 movements have one essential principle in common: “reject modernity, go back to monkey” (damn it, I’ve been corrupted by internet memes). Okay, second attempt at sounding serious: people have been trying to call out the problem in aesthetic Ethics since Ancient Greece. And, in my opinion, they have also been repeatedly failing at that. I mean… The Cynics went on and on about the dangers of social constraints, and in the same breath advocated for virtue; Crowley proposed fully embracing our instincts, but this had the ultimate goal of “finding our divine purpose” which naturally transcends earthly desires. And I won’t analyse kink here, don’t insist, perhaps we’ll do that in a future article… But my point is: whether you’re a proud ethical Aesthetics proponent, allowing your shame of nature to dictate morality… OR whether you’re a bit more cynical (pun intended) and try to rebel against that, but end up arriving at the conclusion that there’s something “naturally pure and god-like” about you anyway… You’re arriving at the same place. It’s just that you can choose between the direct or the indirect route.
FINE. I’ll add a meme here. (I was trying not to). There ya go:
(Let’s play a game: guess which one is Apolline and which one is Dionysian. Just kidding. But feel free).
The above probably explains why the most unorthodox liberals are usually also the most touchy-feely regarding how thoughtfully they’d like to be treated. Guess what, they’re human. They can’t escape their own humanity. And humanity comes with contradictions. Deal 👏 with 👏 it 👏. (Phew! It feels good to take this out of my chest; to EXPOSE here the hypocrisy of people who loved calling me “too orderly”, “rigid”, “square”, among less charming things, just because I’m upfront about the very thing they themselves practice in a more underhanded way). ANYWAY, petty grievances with the spiritual community aside, back on topic now.
I’ll repeat something from the above paragraph which could probably become a bit of a motto in order to understand the intersection of Ethics and aesthetics:
We can’t escape our own humanity… Try as we may.
I know we love pursuing godliness (through both literal and metaphorical cleanliness, and through other means too), but in the end of the day, we must be realistic about the outcome of this pursuit. We are not deities. We are mortals. Period.
Humanity (being that “humans” belong in the animal kingdom together with other primates and, more generally, mammals) implies mortality. We’re not gods. We’re not immortal. We’re all gonna die. We don’t like to think of it, but it’s the only inevitable thing in life. Death comes for all.
…And death also feeds all. It’s the cycle of life, baby!
Like Dr. Giles wisely pointed out in the aforementioned article (basically the only link here, in the intro to this article):
Vegans are fine with slaughtering plants. Yes, vegans, you are still killing. You aren’t doing the broccoli any favors, you know. Eating seeds is not an exception because seeds are also alive.
But why is it that vegans, far and wide, tend to dismiss the above argument as “facile”, even though it is perfectly sound from a philosophical standpoint? Here’s the most likely answer as to why: vegans aren’t truly opposed to slaughter. They just pretend that this is their whole argument, because they would rather be disingenuous than face the truth about what really drives their ideology — Aesthetics.
In other, simpler, words: vegans aren’t dumb. They’re as intelligent as you and I. They know it’s impossible to obtain nutrients without killing other beings. The thing is, they don’t like the aesthetic of killing animals, and would rather kill non-animal living beings for food. This could have a variety of arbitrary reasons, like every aesthetic ever. Maybe for some, it’s the screams they don’t like to hear; Maybe for others, it’s the blood spilt. Maybe for a third or fourth or zillionth crowd, insert aesthetic reason here. Regardless of specificity, their argument against using products of animal origin boils down to aesthetic preference. It’s basically saying “I prioritise keeping a facade of wholesomeness and civility according to the very narrow and inflexible standards of the western industrial white supremacist society, whatever it costs”.
Here, there’s an element of… Cultural narrow-mindedness (to avoid using worse terms which may drive them even more mad at my article, lol). I used to know a vegan who said to me with all the confidence in the world that in one of these world summits in favour of environmentalism (I forgot the name of the organisation and I’m not interested in finding out anyway), “the vegans and the eskimos (sic) found it very difficult to agree with each other when it came to animal product use”. I remember just listening and saying nothing, because I was waiting for the “gotcha!”. It seriously sounded like dark humour… But she was serious. To this day, I sometimes revisit that scene and think of what I could have said in response. Perhaps “oh so you think your Veganism justifies using a racist slur? Or it justifies judging people who live in a part of the world where you literally can’t grow plant-based foods without specialised greenhouses which the tribal communities there definitely can’t afford due to the centuries of colonialism and exploitation they have been subjected to…” Ya know what, why waste my time? I won’t even finish that hypothetic answer. Some people have been living in narrow-minded delusion for so long that it’s best to leave them to it. I only cited the story here to illustrate my point about Aesthetics: sometimes, people do the wildest mental gymnastics to justify what they could have explained more simply with honesty and some shadow-work. For example: “look, I don’t know why, but I unfortunately consider those northern people a little savage. I couldn’t imagine eating raw meat, bloody like that. It’s not very aesthetic. It doesn’t go with my whole image of cute and wholesome girly girl”. There ya go. It takes a little courage, but at least it’s not delusion. Throw the first stone who hasn’t ever inherited problematic prejudice from their caregivers when growing up. It’s very noble to address this prejudice, but one cannot address that which hasn’t been acknowledged first. I’M JUST SAYING.
Speaking of narrow-mindedness and inherited prejudice… That’s also part of being human. Some people happen to display more jarring iterations of this phenomenon (such as racism), which is easy to call out; But if you take a deep dive into its driving mechanism, you’ll see that the human mind is naturally prone to conditioning. I don’t have any research handy on this topic — feel free to suggest in the comments — but I’m pretty confident that it has something to do with the same old tribalism that kept us alive when we still lived in caves: agreeing with your tribe, instead of incessantly searching for the objective truth in every situation, ensured belonging, which in turn ensured every individual’s survival. This is not to “defend” anyone’s unchecked prejudice or privilege built on other people’s exploitation; Instead, I’m drawing attention to WHY group think happens so easily.
Here’s the hard-to-swallow pill: some processes essential for life on this planet are not beautiful.
Nobody likes to think of corpses decomposing, releasing a foul odour while bacteria and other micro-organisms eat the flesh away — so we mourn the dead in a more aesthetically pleasing way, thinking only of their soul and the highlights of their life (and we sometimes go to extreme lengths embalming people in order to please our sense of Aesthetics, like Caitlin Doughty, mortician, taught us here). I’m not saying one perspective is more important than the other — of course it’s important to consider the immaterial spirit too! — but I’m pointing out that we deliberately choose what to focus on based on our sense of Aesthetics.
So, if our sense of “justice” in this case (aka. “Dignity” for the dead… Even though they’re a spirit now? And the body no longer matters? Go figure?) is based on Aesthetics… It isn’t too big of a stretch to say that our selective empathy for animals (instead of plants and fungi) has a similar basis, given that we share so much DNA with them and consider the way animals move, make sounds, etc, “relatable” to some extent. It’s as if we were looking at a rudimentary version of ourselves suffering to death when we look at animals dying. It’s far harder to relate to plants and fungi in the same way; let alone beings we can’t see with the naked eye.
This is, of course, understandable. It’s no wonder that so many vegans say “if you have a heart…”, because they’re genuinely empathising with animals from a place of relatability. They just forgot to acknowledge that this has a basis on aesthetics; But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying aesthetic morals are somehow wrong. I’m pointing out they exist, and you can take your own conclusion. Personally, I find it very necessary, to some extent. If we DIDN’T feel this urge to defend each other and similar beings from a place of aesthetic preference, we wouldn’t have emotional empathy either. We’d all be like my mother, for example — the realest live-action Cruella de Vill that Disney never asked for. (Hence why I shared the anecdote at the start of this article). And I do believe the world would be a far worse place in that case.
There is, however, something to be said about the dangers of excessively leaning on Aesthetics to inform your morals — so perhaps, like with everything in life, the key is in balance, instead of extremism. I will once again highlight the hypocrisy of today’s Buddhists who unfortunately exist in every school of Buddhism (and used not to), thanks to the conflation of Ethics and Aesthetics, perhaps (although it’s a speculation) as a result of Colonialism and Western hegemony: sometimes, Buddhist maxims aren’t supposed to be understood in a simplistic fashion. Freeing “all beings” from suffering doesn’t mean depriving YOURSELF of nutrition or clothing, because, in case you haven’t noticed, you are a being. In my own understanding, this maxim has more to do with achievable compassion — that which combats psychopathy, for example. I’ll cite Dr. Giles here once again:
We can pursue our own ends with nonhuman animals, that’s ethical, but it is not ethical to exploit them strictly as a means to our own ends. For example, it is ethical to train and ride a horse, but not ethical to work a horse to death. We can own a horse but not beat and starve a horse.
Ya know? Achievable humane treatment. Not batshit crazy extremism for kudos points with the aesthetic moralists.
In fact, I am super in favour of occasional Veganism. We could all do with a few days of the week without animal product consumption. Imagine billions of people practising that? Overconsumption would definitely be a thing of the past; And this would also take the pressure off populations that objectively NEED animal products for survival 24/7 — notoriously, those living within the polar circles. But in order for that to happen, we need to 1) agree that extremism is bad, no matter what side of the spectrum you’re on, and 2) be willing to use our intellectual empathy FIRST and let our emotional empathy take the back seat every once in a while. Is the West ready for these two lessons? No. Will it ever be? Maybe. I’m hopeful, but I’ve been called an idealist more than once, so… Let’s just agree that an attempt at reaching this utopia would be nice, no matter how far-fetched.
All in all, perhaps an achievable first step in tackling the excesses of aesthetic morals in the West is the act of acknowledging that it’s a thing. If this article helps a bit, I’m already happy.
