Consciousness About Products (Philosophical)

One of the disadvantages of living in a capitalistic society is that when it comes to buying products, you don't know about them until years after using them. I've been working hard to maintain a vegan diet for about five years and I've been actively trying to use products that are cruelty free and are not animal tested. It's pretty sad that I live in a culture that puts the economy before integrity and humanity. I plan on being one person less that will be using products that derive from animal ingredients or have been tested on animals.

PETA can be pretty unethical at times, especially when they put unadopted animals to sleep and when they believe that they are the spokespersons for veganism, they can be annoying. However, I would trust them to tell me whether or not something is vegan over someone who works for a major corporation that supports animal exploitation.

They provide a list of companies that test on animals. You're probably thinking, "Neb, why is animal testing so bad? Isn't eating a vegan diet good enough?" The answer to that would be "No, if you are aware of supporting animal testing and still consume the products, then why be vegan in the first place?"

Dove is one of the companies that support animal testing. My mom used their soap when I was born. The hospital I was born at used their soap as well. All these years being vegan, I thought companies that used animal testing were upperclass high-end cosmetic that had customers draped in furs and basked in conflict diamonds and such. After reading the list, I think "Oh my god! All these years I supported them and called myself vegan!" Now that I saw the list, I know better and when I walk to Walgreen's and shop for soap and other household items, I will look for the logo with the bunny rabbit that says "Cruelty Free" below it.

I think the philosophical aspect of why animal testing and consuming animal products are bad should be addressed in my other blog (Ungrounded Gamer), but I think because this blog is dedicated to veganism, the lifestyle and in some sense ascetism I will address it here.

An Argument in Defense of Veganism and Not Supporting Animal Testing (Politically Incorrect Version)

People do things to animals, and what I mean by that is everyday common people who would not give veganism or even vegetarianism a second thought. Through out history and even today humans eat animals, we own them as pets, we make products with them, we use them as a source of entertainment and we espcially use them for labor. The one thing that we do not normally is have sex with animals. In most countries in the world it is illegal to have sex with animals and in most cultures, vast majority of all world cultures, beastiality is taboo. It's almost equivalent to having sex with minors, or even dead people. One argument that people give about why it's not acceptable to have sex with animals is that animals cannot consent to having sex with people.

I feel like people, if they are going to be pro-meat and use animals for all other things in life, why not go all the way with it. By the way, I give this argument credit to someone who brought it up on Youtube in the comment section of a video about veganism. It still takes forever to come up with compelling arguments about veganism, even though there are so many. This argument can make people who consume animal flesh and use the service of animals look bad. Anti-vegans like to point out our inconsistencies. It only makes sense to come up with arguments that can make them look bad. "Why do you love dogs and cats so much as pets and yet you eat meat and get mad at cultures that eat dogs and cat?"

Most people who use the argument that humans do not have sex with animals because animals cannot consent are not using a strong argument (starting to sound like Peter Singer here). Those same animals do not consent to being eaten, used as a form of entertainment and labor, have their young taken from them, being used for labor and so forth. Just like the dead and children do not consent to things being done to them, the same argument can be used for the consumption of animals. I would respect the argument that having sex with animals can spread diseases in human population. In fact, that is one argument that I would use to say as of why *I* would not do it, besides the fact that there is nothing attractive about animals and there is nothing attractive about human beings dressing up as other animals. I definately do not advocate beastiality.

They can also argue that it is unnatural but that would be the Appeal to Nature Fallacy. We all do things that are unnatural. I think a better argument is to cite how psychologically damaging it is to the individual and how it's not  "normal". A hallmate used this argument to explain why black women should not straighten their hair, but she looked ignorant. There are black women who naturally have straight hair, and this is an argument for another post. People who use this fallacy in arguments are the first people who think they get a gold star, when they really don't. Humans do so many unnatural things that using the argument of nature is a weak attempt at winning. It also implies that nature is good and flawless. Humans evolve to change their surroundings to suit them. Yes, biology does not catch up with human society, but this is why we change our way of thinking.

One can also use statitistics to point out why we should not do some things to animals, but we can do other things to them. Statistics would be a really bad argument. A hallmate tried to use statistics to strengthen his own argument, when he does not understand that statistics can be manipulated and used by anyone. I would go as far as to say that he used so many straw man arguments, that's another story. Statisticscan be a legitimate way of supporting a claim or it can be a cheap shot just to get the other person to shut up. You cannot exclusively use logic in an argument. That is what people who are against animal rights and welfare do. Some would go as far as using their religious texts to explain why it's acceptable to use animals, but that would be appealing to emotions and authority. It would not make sense, because many people do not share the same religious beliefs.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

I posted my frustration in one sentence on my Facebook page. A response was "What are the alternatives?". First, I would say that the fact that the product has to be tested on animals is telling of the ingredients that belong in the product. I suggested using volunteers or clinical studies. I do not see how testing on animals will tell me if the product is better for me or not. Vegans usually use plant-based products on their bodies. I would go as far as to say we should use products that are not only cruelty free, but are also conflict free or fair trade. These are alternatives to animal testing.

Here is a disclaimer: I know that not everything in life can be optionally cruelty-free. I know that the medicine that I consume will be animal tested, especially if they are antibiotics. I have doctors even telling me that I should give up trying to sustain a cruelty-free lifestyle, due to health and other reasons. That's probably one of the reasons why I gave up the idea of being an engineer. I gave up the chance for a job that will pay my student loans twice over in a few months, but I also gave up all those long hours of studying, exposure to math, science and engineering that will take the joy away from school, and I gave up the possibility that I will use an animal for dissecting or testing. If I went into a field such as animal science and biology, I would still be testing on animals. Most vegans know that there are some things we can't give up. It's not like being a strict Christian where people are more understanding. If that was the case then people who are vegan would not be criticised for the way we decided to live our lives.