Living one’s life as a veganis a clear first step for many,but then what? There are

countless ways in which motivated individuals canuse their gifts to reduce animal suffering each day.The possibilities are limited only by our creativity.

There is no one-size-fits-all method of activism.What are your strengths/weaknesses? What doyou enjoy doing? How can you live a happy, pur-poseful life and help the animals to the greatestdegree possible? The answers, of course, are dif-ferent for each of us, and sometimes our answerschange over time.

While creative thinking and playing to one’sstrengths can open up new avenues for promotingveganism, rigid adherence to doctrine can obstructadvocacy. Isn’t one’s time better spent distributingvegan literature than tracing the origins of obscureingredients? In order to be effective advocates,the decisions we make—both on a daily basis andlong-term—must offer a net benefit to the animals.

Vegans can remain true to their ideals regardlessof whether or not they engage in traditional methods of activism. Although striving to acquiregreat wealth is seen by many as the antithesis ofactivism, those who earn large amounts of moneythrough business can have an enormous impacton animal liberation when they contribute fundsto organizations/activities aimed at reducing animal suffering.

Diverse and committed people have lent their talents to all aspects of Vegan Outreach. However,if not for those who pursue other fields andfinancially support the printing of WHY VEGAN andVEGETARIAN LIVING, we would be unable to reachanyone with our information. It is because of ourmembers’ hard work in fields not directly relatedto animal rights that we have the funds needed to print and distribute literature around the world.

In order to spreadvegetarianism and veganismeffectively, our focus should

be on educating people with credible, persuasive,and focused literature; providing well-documentedand thorough answers for specific questions;supplying educational materials to schools; working to get vegan options in various settings;working with food manufacturers, grocery stores,and restaurants for more options; and supplyingpeople with lists of local restaurants and shop-ping opportunities where vegan options exist.

Our experience has shown that the mosteffective way to accomplish the above isthrough understanding and constructiveoutreach. Positive outreach takes patienceand can be frustrating, but it is worth theeffort. We don’t have to force people to noticeus; simply being confident, articulate vegansin public is enough.

Some specific activities that can lead topeople learning about veganism are:

Putting a reference (URLs or quotes)in your email address or email signature.

Wearing clothes that say “vegan” or“vegetarian.” This creates opportunities to give literature to people who ask.

Writing articles for/letters to publications,including newsletters of local groups (e.g., yourlocal chapter of the Audubon Society, the NatureConservancy, Food not Bombs, etc.). Tell a storytailored to the audience that gives the readersa way of identifying with you.

Displaying information in public areas,such as hanging copies of WHY VEGAN and/orVEGETARIAN LIVING* on your office door. Many have reported great success in displaying them at health food stores, restaurants, libraries, etc.Also, posters and display prints can be downloadedfrom the Vegan Outreach web site—perfect forcampus bulletin boards.*A less graphic version of WHY VEGAN, with a different

order and weighting of subjects, whichmay be more appropriate for some

audiences and may be allowed for displayin areas where WHY VEGAN is not.

Providing people with goodvegan food. Although this soundsobvious, it is far from easy. Our

general advice now is to serve easily prepared, relatively simplefoods (e.g., pasta, potatoes, beans,casseroles) with different sauces,perhaps with a new food as an

••

••

••

••

••

TIPSFOR

SPREADING

VEGANISMPLAYING TOSTRENGTHPLAYING TOSTRENGTH

—INSIDE—Activism and Veganism Reconsidered . . . . 4Anger, Humor, and Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Selecting Information for Advocacy . . . . . 8Beyond Might Makes Right . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CONSTRUCTIVEOUTREACHCONSTRUCTIVEOUTREACH

—INSIDE—Activism and Veganism Reconsidered . . . . 4Anger, Humor, and Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Selecting Information for Advocacy . . . . . 8Beyond Might Makes Right . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

appetizer (e.g., hummus). If serving vegetar-ian “meats,” we suggest providing standardcondiments (mustard, pickles, etc.).

Joining/starting a local veg*an society.Many people will be significantly helped by

some support structure—shopping references,dining guides, potlucks, etc. Your group can writeguest columns, seek out speaking engagements inschools and clubs, give cooking classes, work withlocal schools and restaurants to increase veganoptions, show documentaries, etc. There is reallyno limit to this.

The initial impression iscrucial in establishing adialogue. Displays, needed

to attract visitors, should clearly and simply conveythe area of concern. Large-screen TVs are alwaysmagnets for attracting people, to whom you canthen offer literature. Consider your audience andlocation when you choose which pictures to displayor videos to show. Graphic images of animal tortureupset children, while teenagers and younger adultsare most likely to be moved by these photographs.

Be clean, well-groomed, and conservatively dressed.Counter-culture attire, except where this is thenorm, sends the message that your world radicallydiffers from that of your audience. This creates abarrier between you and prospective visitors whomay react with a feeling of distrust, even hostility.Remember, you are there as a spokesperson forthe animals, and should not let anything comebetween your audience and your message.

Your credibility will increase if you actively listen:repeat a visitor’s main points using different words,showing that you understand. Then, ask thought-provoking but courteous questions. Seek commonground with your visitors by emphasizing sharedgoals or concerns. Acknowledge your table visitors’valid points or observations. Don’t turn theencounter into a debateor personal attack; keepit a mutual explorationof the issues.

If the main barrier seemsto be the visitors’ desireto continue habits thatthey find pleasant—suchas sport fishing or wearingfur—mention any of yourown relevant changes inlifestyle. In response toa declaration such as“I could nevergive up meat,”you might relatesomething ofyour own eat-ing habits: e.g.,“I used to feel the

same way, and at first I just cut back on meat.Now that I’m vegetarian, I’ve found that I reallydon’t miss meat. In fact, I feel good about my diet,being more at peace with the world around me.”Such an honest admission of your own feelingscan build rapport. When people say somethinga little obnoxious, smile and wish them a good day.If they say something really mean, you might say,“That was a mean thing to say.” If said as anobservation, without a tone of bitterness, it willpossibly get them thinking.

The great thing aboutleafletting is thelack of prepara-

tion time required. At the right time and place, justone person can hand out hundreds of brochures inless than an hour. You will inevitably interest manynew people in making their way toward veganism,sowing seeds of change where they do not currently exist.

Students tend to be more interested in veganismthan the rest of society, making college campusesgood places to leaflet; weekdays before 3 p.m. arethe busiest times. At large universities, there isnormally a steady flow of pedestrian traffic some-where on campus at all times throughout the day.Smaller colleges and universities usually havea steady flow of traffic between classes.

You can find a spot where many pedestrians arepassing, or you can walk around offering the bro-chure to people you come across (which makesyou less conspicuous). Some schools have an openpolicy on allowing leafletting, while others do not.Even if someone eventually tells you that you arenot permitted to hand out literature on campus, it will likely be after you’ve given out a great number of brochures.

People who take part in walkathons in order toraise money for causes tend to be willing to

••

222

SUGGESTIONSFOR TABLINGSUGGESTIONSFOR TABLING

SUGGESTIONSFOR LEAFLETTINGSUGGESTIONSFOR LEAFLETTING

accept literature. (We target these people becausewe think they are likely to take a brochure, read it,and thoughtfully consider moving towards vegan-ism, not because WHY VEGAN has anything to dowith the cause for which they are walking.) Animal-related events, such as humane society benefits oranimal rights presentations, are also a good placeto reach interested and committed individuals whomay not have considered the implications of theirown diet, or the idea of promoting veganism.

While leafletting, keep in mind:

We have found that “Would you like a pamphletabout vegetarianism?” or “Have you seen one ofthese yet?” are effective ways of offering literatureto people (and minimize the number thrown away).

Many activists are nervous about leafletting. In our experience, nervousness often fades onceyou’ve offered the brochure to a few people.

Besides WHY VEGAN, Vegan Outreach can sup-ply you with copies of our VEGAN STARTER PACK for people with questions.

One person can make an enormous difference.Many people will pass the information on to others,causing a chain reaction.

Few people have any interest inengaging a religious zealotbent on converting them.

Similarly, when animal rights advocates give theimpression that they are trying to convert people,people resist the message. One activist reportswhat has worked for him:

I started at a new university almost a year ago.I wore my sweatshirt and t-shirts that sayVegan Outreach on them at least every thirdday. For months, only a fewpeople said anything to me.Some of them joke with meabout eating meat. I don’t act offended, and try to con-tinue the conversation. Slowly,over time, more and more peo-ple ask questions. I try not tobe pushy, but offer them aWHY VEGAN pamphlet whenthe circumstances are right.

Our conversations used to go somewhat like this:

Potential Vegan (PV): Oh, so you’re a vegan. I know someone else who is vegan. You know, I really think it’s terrible how they treat the animals, but I could never do it. Animal productsare in everything, aren’t they?

Vegan: They are in a lot of things. But you figure out what you can and can’t eat and then itbecomes easier.

PV: It just takes too much discipline for me.

Vegan: I could give you a list of the names of all thedifferent possible animal ingredients. There’s lessthan 10,000 of them! And I can give you a list of500 companies and whether they test on animalsor not. It’s not so bad. Hey, where are you going?

Now our answer goes:

Vegan: To me, veganism is not about personal purity,but a way to stop suffering. You don’t have to avoidevery animal product, just the obvious ones forwhich an animal was bred, raised, and eventuallykilled. Some vegans avoid all they can as a sym-bolic gesture, but minuscule amounts of animalproducts or by-products will fade away as themeat, dairy, and egg industries fade.

Sometimes a potential vegan will say, “I could justnever give up ice cream (or cheese, etc.).” Somevegans now reply, “Then give up everything butice cream.” These types of reactions will often sur-prise the potential vegan and make them realizethat veganism is not about making yourself pure,but about doing what you can to stop suffering.

People often try to sidestep the issue by talkingabout everything from Eskimos eating fish to beingstranded on a desert island. To be effective, wehave to bring conversations back to the fact thateating animal products causes suffering, and eachof us can work to avoid creating this suffering.

We should not simply try to feel that we have wonan argument with a meat eater. Rather, we needpeople to consider the issues in depth and wantto change. If we are to reach people’s hearts andminds, and help them utilize the power of theirchoices, we must make people aware that we aresincere individuals who have made informed decisions. We must show everyone that we havedecided to use our choices to make a positivestatement about how the world should—and can—be. Only then will others be inclined to join us increating a new world.

••

••

••

••

TTips for Sor Sprpreading V VeganismsmTips for Sor Sprpreading V VeganismsmTips for Spreading Veganism

333

Cover photos (clockwise): Basla Andolsun at U of NM;display set up by Precious James Powell at U of GAlibrary; Chelsea Lincoln at U of OR; Marsha Forsmanat Chicago Earth Day event; Philip Rutkowski at Uof PA Econference 2000.

Page 2: VO display table at AR2000; Mark McEahernat U of WI, Madison; Speak Out of Allendale, NJ; Katja Hrores at Harvard; Jack Norris at U of WA;Matt Ball at Seton Hill College, Greensburg, PA.

Page 3: Joe Espinosa at Chicago Earth Day event;Philip at U of PA; Kevin P. O’Gallagher at U of CO at Denver; Dave Costa at MI State; Michael Tuckerat FL International U; “Which item on this tray isthe most harmful to the environment?” display byVegetarian Solutions of Atlanta, GA; Tommy Nail of Allen, TX.

PERSONALINTERACTIONPERSONALINTERACTION

In the past twenty years, the animal rights (AR) movement has made the publicaware of many issues concerning animals. During this time, unfortunately, per-capita meat consumption has risen, and the number of animals killed in theUnited States has increased by hundreds of millions each year.

It may be possible to help small numbers of animals by stopping blatant, sociallyunacceptable forms of cruelty. But true animal liberation can only be possible bychanging deeply ingrained patterns of thought about animals—specifically, thatanimals exist for humans to use.

ations for improving advocacy, not as argumentor judgement.

Hoop Dreams A basketball coach oncetold me: “Practice doesn’t make perfect. Poorly

planned and executed practice, no matter how hard you work, tends to just reinforce bad habits and will ultimately only make you a worse player.

“Only perfect practice makes perfect.”

The same can be said about activism. No matter how angry we are, how much webelieve in something, how hard we work, orhow much we suffer, our activities can be use-less or even counter-productive. We shouldalways strive to think clearly, get good counsel,be willing to admit our mistakes, and changecourse in midstream if necessary (howeverego-damaging this can be). If our efforts arenot part of a well-defined and thought-throughplan, we will spin our wheels.

Main Point During the time the AR move-ment has been visible in the U.S. (since ~1980),AR activists have stopped some abuses, receivedmedia attention, and become a fixture of pop

Fundamental Facts The number of animalskilled for fur in the U.S. each year is approxi-mately equal to the human population of Illinois.The number of animals killed in experimentationin the U.S. each year is approxi-mately equal to the human pop-ulation of Texas. The number ofmammals and birds farmed andslaughtered in the U.S. each yearis approximately equal to oneand two-thirds the entire humanpopulation of Earth.

Over 99% of the animals killed in the U.S.each year die to be eaten. Everyone makeschoices directly determining the fates of theseanimals when deciding what to eat each day.

Because most people eat animals, thecommonplace view remains that animals aretools and commodities. There are a millionsymptoms of this view—small-scale yet highly visible abusesthat always seem to demandour attention: canned hunts,circuses, cockfighting, fur, horseracing, etc. Many activists burnout because of the never-endingtorrent of these “battles” aroundthem and the difficulty in winning even thesmallest “victory.”

This cycle will continue until there is a fundamental change in society. The only wayto make this happen is by convincing people to stop eating animals.

Question Authority We expect the gen-eral public to question everything they assumeand have ever been told about food, traditions,health, etc. Given the enormity of the task athand, the increase in the number of animalskilled each year, and the relative paucity of ourresources, I believe we too must constantlyquestion everything we assume and have everbeen told about our activism and veganism.My assumptions and ego have harmed theeffectiveness of my advocacy in the past. Ioffer these lessons learned solely as consider-

BY

MATT

BALL

culture. Yet after two decades, with hundreds ofmillions of dollars spent and possibly a similarnumber of hours of work devoted, almost twiceas many animals will be killed in the U.S. thisyear as were killed in 1980.

In the U.S., given the quantity of non-humananimals suffering, the extent to which they aresuffering, and the reason they are intentionallymade to suffer, I believe that animal liberationis the moral imperative of our time. Our entirefocus should be on ending the suffering as efficiently and quickly as possible.

I believe we have an ethical obligation torecognize and set aside all of our personal

baggage and to perform anobjective analysis of both thepros/cons and costs/benefits ofour choice of focus, our choiceof tactics, and the example wechoose to present to the public.

Focus: Limited ResourcesAlong with anger, guilt is a

highly motivating emotion among activists.If we know of a highly visible case of animalexploitation, we feel that we must take actionagainst it.

As much as we don’t want to admit it,though, we can’t do everything: when wechoose to pursue one thing, we are choosing

not to pursue others.Compared to the public as

a whole and the companieswhich exploit animals, ARactivists have extremely limitedresources: money, time, andemotional energy. Instead ofreacting to whatever visible

abuses that come up or following the leads ofother activists, utilizing our limited resourcesso as to maximize their results should be ourfirst priority.

There are a host of people out there whoare open to our efforts, while those who profitfrom the industries that exploit animals are not.Shouldn’t we gain strength in numbers by firstfocusing the bulk of our energies into persuad-ing those people who are willing to listento our message?

Money, Immediacy, and VictoriesSome contend that small-scale, high-profilecases provide a hook to allow organizations to raise money and gain new members. Othersargue that victories can help energize activistswho would otherwise burn out on actions thatdon’t have a tangible payoff. Although these

444

The number of animals killed for furin the U.S. each year is approximately equal to

the human population of Illinois.

The number of animals killed for furin the U.S. each year is approximately equal to

the human population of Illinois.

Activism and Veganism Reconsidered:Activism and Veganism Reconsidered:

The number of animals killed in experimentationin the U.S. each year is approximately equal to

the human population of Texas.

The number of animals killed in experimentationin the U.S. each year is approximately equal to

the human population of Texas.

The number of mammals and birds farmed and slaughtered for food in the U.S. each year is approximately equal to

one and two-thirds the entire human population of Earth.

The number of mammals and birds farmed and slaughtered for food in the U.S. each year is approximately equal to

one and two-thirds the entire human population of Earth.

are valid considerations, these potential posi-tives must be weighed against other factors.

Hegins One example of our movement’spriorities is the Hegins pigeon shoot—one of the primary AR accomplishments of the 1990s.Immense amounts of money and human effortwent into this campaign. Ending the Heginspigeon shoot has saved ~5,000 animals eachyear—the number of animals that die in U.Sslaughterhouses every 16 seconds.

In the future, we need to decide if the ani-mals are best served by this type of allocationof resources. If we choose not to decide, westill have made a choice.

Tactics Given the wide range of animalabuses and the various situations in whichactivists find themselves, I believe it is not pos-sible to make a blanket statement that a specifictactic is unquestionably positive or alwaysharmful. For example, a certain type of dem-onstration, when run in a relevant situationand with a respectful,clear message, can pos-sibly raise the public’sawareness, receive fairmedia coverage, andencourage some activ-ists. The same type ofdemonstration, rununder different circum-stances and with an outrageous message madethrough chants, shouts, and/or stunts, canserve to harm the progression of animal libera-tion by alienating the public and frustratingthoughtful activists.

Like deciding where to focus our limitedresources, decisions about tactics must bemade in the larger context of our goals. Whyare we doing this (e.g., is it because of angerand guilt, or because it is a strategic step thatserves our larger goal)? What is the most prob-able outcome? What effect will it have on thepublic? On other activists? What other activitiescould we do with the same time and resources,and would one of those options have a greatereffect overall? Again, I believe that we have anobligation to ask these questions.

The Media Circus Many activists feelthat the worth of their activism or event isbased on how much media coverage theyreceive. It is not necessary, however, to focusone’s activism on getting media attention.

Trying to use the media has a number of drawbacks. There is rarely enough time topresent a full and compelling case for veganism.

Nor is there time enough to get into importantnutritional aspects that need attention in orderto follow a vegan diet successfully. Furthermore,the media makes opponents aware of ourefforts. This enables animal exploiters to mobi-lize against us, as well as providing them witha free venue in which to disagree with us, sincereports invariably give them equal or better air-time. Many in the media will only air somethingif they feel they are able to make us look silly,or like vandals and terrorists. Others make theentire issue of animal liberation (regardless of whether it was originally about fur, meat, or hunting) into “your baby or your dog.”

All of the above drawbacks can be avoidedby handing out detailed and accurate informa-tion about veganism in one-on-one situations.You might reach fewer people, but you will be providing them with thorough information,versus a sound bite that is easy to dismiss or forget.

Why Veganism? Spreading informationabout how veganism prevents animal sufferinghelps to move individuals (and thus society)away from relying on animal exploitation for a fundamental, daily activity—eating. Onceindividuals have broken their attachment to a daily reliance on animal exploitation, it ismuch easier for them to reject all animalexploitation, rather than just the high-profileabuses committed by others. As more peopleunderstand and act by the tenets of veganism,it will be significantly easier for others to jointhem. This will bring pressure to bear on otheranimal issues, and achievement of our goalswill be accelerated.

But we don’t need a majority in order tomake a huge reduction in animal suffering byspreading veganism: if 5% of Americans wereto stop eating animals, more suffering would beprevented than if we completely abolished everyother form of animal exploitation in the U.S.

Promoting veganism brings about the fundamental change that is needed. Done at a reasonable pace, it can sustain activists whowould otherwise burn out in the face of endless

“battles.” It can be hard to put fundamentalchange ahead of expressing our anger in smallbattles, but it is necessary if progress is to bemade towards animal liberation.

The Health Argument As Donna Maurerconcluded in her dissertation (1997) about the vegetarian movement in North America,“the strategies that vegetarian groups enact to promote ‘healthy diets’ for each individual’spersonal benefit inhibit people from adopting a collective vegetarian identity based on moralconcern regarding human/animal relationships;without commitment to this moral concern,‘being a vegetarian’ is a lifestyle vulnerable to changing personal and cultural tastes.”

Many activists believe the health argumentto be the most effective for promoting vegetar-ianism because it is the least threatening andappeals to people’s self-interest. We questionwhether this is really the best tactic for the following reasons:

■ Even if ethics isnot as effective as thehealth argument at ini-tially persuading somepeople, those who aremotivated to changebased on ethics will bebetter spokespersonsfor veganism. In the

promotion of animal liberation, each individual’sexample and actions as a spokesperson are atleast as important as the economic impact theirindividual choices have. Promoting a “plant-based” diet for health reasons feeds our society’sfocus on selfishness by implying that animalsuffering is not worthy of people’s concern. It delays the time when we, as a society, willcome to terms with our treatment of animals.

■ Diets based on health claims are subjectto further change based on new, low-fat animalproducts and fad diets (THE ZONE, EAT RIGHT

FOR YOUR TYPE, etc.). People who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet to feel healthier willresume consuming animal products if they feelno improvement. Because they do not neces-sarily have their hearts into being vegetarian or vegan, they often will not experiment with itlong enough to find a way of eating that makesthem feel healthy. This can have far-reaching,negative effects as they go on to tell othershow unhealthy they felt when they were veg.

■ In the past twenty years, the number ofanimals killed has skyrocketed because of themove toward eating more chickens and fish,

Personal Thoughts at the New Millennium

AActivism and Veganism Rsm Reconsnsiderered: Pd: Persrsonal Tl Thoughts at tht the Ne New Millw MillenniumActivism and Veganism Rsm Reconsnsiderered: Pd: Persrsonal Tl Thoughts at tht the Ne New Millw MillenniumActivism and Veganism Reconsidered: Personal Thoughts at the New Millennium

555

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil…

…to one who is striking at the root…

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil…

…to one who is striking at the root… Henry David Thoreau, WALDEN, 1854

brought about in part because of people tryingto eat less red meat for health reasons.

■ Health claims regarding the benefits of vegetarianism can often be exaggeratedand/or incomplete. Because so many peoplehave health questions regarding a vegetariandiet, all activists should honestly educatethemselves with current and complete nutri-tional information. When people ask abouthealth, we can confidently state that a vegandiet can be healthy and explain which nutrientsmight be of concern. (For the informationVegan Outreach considers the most up-to-dateand scientifically-thorough, please see:http://www.veganoutreach.org/health)

The Vegan Example In general, peopledo not want to believe that they are supportingcruelty by eating animal products. They don’twant to give up convenience and their favoritefoods, and they don’t want to separate them-selves from their friends and family. So it isunlikely that people will even listen to ourmessage—let alone think about changing—ifthey perceive vegans as joyless misanthropes.

There often appears to be a contest amongvegans for discovering new connections to ani-mal exploitation (of course, links can be foundeverywhere if one looks hard enough). Thisattitude makes us appear fanatical and givesmany people an excuse to ignore our message.

Some vegans claim sugar (and productscontaining sugar, like Tofutti) isn’t veganbecause some sugar processing uses bonechar as a whitening agent. Bone char is alsoused as a source of activated carbon in somewater filters and by some municipal watertreatment plants. (These plants also use teststhat involve animal products, and water itselfhas been tested on animals.) So should we saywater isn’t “vegan”?

The vast majority of people in our societyhave no problem gnawing on an actual chickenleg. Yet we make an issue of honey, despite thefact that insects and other animals are killed inthe process of planting, raising, harvesting, andtransporting our vegan food. It is no wonderthat many people dismiss us as unreasonableand irrational when they are told (or when it isimplied by our actions) that they must not eatveggie burgers cooked on the same grill with

“meat,” drink wine, take photographs, usemedications, etc.; some vegans even tack onother political or religious ideologies.

Busting the Vegan Police It is impera-tive for us to realize that if our veganism is astatement for animal liberation, veganism can-not be an exclusive, ego-boosting club. Rather,we must become the mainstream. Fosteringthe impression that “it’s so hard to be vegan—animal products are in everything,” andemphasizing animal products where the con-nection to animal suffering is tenuous, worksagainst this by allowing most to ignore us andcausing others to give up the whole processout of frustration.

The way veganism is presented to a poten-tial vegan is of major importance. The attractiveidea behind being a “vegan” is reducing one’scontribution to animal exploitation. Buying meat,eggs, and/or dairy creates animal suffering—animals will be raised and slaughtered specifi-cally for these products. But if the by-productsare not sold, they will be thrown out or givenaway. As more people stop eating animals, theby-products will naturally fade, so there is noreal reason to force other people to worry aboutthem in order to call themselves “vegan.”

We want a vegan world, not a vegan club.Practical and Symbolic Vegans Most

vegans have multiple motivations, but primarymotivations often distinguish vegans, such as“health vegans” or “spiritual/religious vegans.”I see another type of distinction as being useful:“practical vegans” and “symbolic vegans.”Practical vegans avoid the specific products forwhich animals are bred, raised, and eventuallyslaughtered. Every product they choose to avoidcan be directly and causally linked to animalsuffering. Symbolic vegans, in addition toavoiding those products, go beyond this tosome level (e.g., avoiding sugar but not water)so as to be able to make a statement (aboutsolidarity with the animals, personal purity, etc.).

Illustration The gelatin in film makesmany vegans uncomfortable. However, filmcompanies won’t use something more expen-sive because of this discomfort. As long as animals are slaughtered for their flesh, gelatinwill remain a dirt-cheap by-product. This won’tchange because of a relatively few symbolic

vegans. It will change, however, as the numberof practical vegans expands and there isn’t anendless string of animals being slaughtered forfood, making a substitute necessary.

In dealing with others, practical vegans canexplain: “I don’t buy products that directly causeanimal suffering—things for which animals arebred, raised, and slaughtered. A symbolic vegancould add: “Personally, I choose to go further andavoid film [sugar, etc.] as a symbolic gesture.”

Once the demand for primary animal products shrinks and the by-products are no longer so cheap, companies will find new filtering methods, new ways to cure concrete,new means of producing steel and rubber, new blood-test methods, etc. As more peopleare concerned with animals, farming practiceswill be altered so fewer animals are harmedand killed during planting and harvesting of vegan food.

The Future: A New Vision We need an articulated and actionable plan for bringingabout animal liberation. In the current view,we spend our resources and energy “fightingbattles,” where they occur and on the exploiters’terms. We need to move beyond this warimagery to a constructive approach.

No matter how many chants we shout, no matter how many sound bites we gain, no matter how many labs we vandalize or“enemies” we defeat, animal liberation will notoccur until we join with everyone in a veganworld. If there is to be a fundamental changein the manner in which other animals areviewed—if there is to be animal liberation—there can be no “us and them.”

There is hope for animal liberation if andonly if we learn how to help people get pasttheir wall of denial and manifest their latentcompassion. To succeed, our interactions withothers must be rooted in empathy and under-standing—working with and from a person’smotivations, fears, desires, and shortcomings.Instead of approaching with a “fighting” mind-set, which necessarily makes people defensiveand closed to new ideas, we should providepeople with information that they can digeston their own time and act upon at a sustainablepace. Only then will real progress be made.

666

AS A REACTION TO WHAT GOES ON in factoryfarms and slaughterhouses, very strongfeelings are understandable and entirelyjustified. But I believe that our inability—individually and as a movement—to dealwith our anger in a constructive manner is one of the greatest hindrances to theadvancement of animal liberation.

Over time, people tend to deal withtheir anger in different ways. Some take toprotesting, some to screaming, hatred, andsarcasm. Others disconnect from society andsurround themselves with only like-mindedpeople, seeing society as a large conspiracyagainst veganism. I do not believe any ofthis does much to move society towardsbeing more compassionate.

A different approach is to try to main-tain a positive outlook and a sense of humor.This makes it easier to continue in activismand to avoid self-righteous fundamental-ism, and also makes it possible to interactpositively and constructively with others.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way togain and maintain a sense of humor.

One suggestion is to always rememberyour ultimate goal. In my case, it is the alleviation of suffering. If I allow myself tobe miserable because of the cruelty in the

world, I am adding to the suffering in theworld. More importantly, I am saying thatunless utopia is instantaneously established,it is not possible to be happy. Thus, my goalis fundamentally unachievable.

To have any change occur in the world,we need to convince others to think beyondthemselves. We must be willing to do thesame. Just as we want others to look beyondthe short-term satisfaction of followinghabits and traditions, we need to move pastour anger to effective advocacy (e.g., movingfrom yelling and chanting to constructiveeducational outreach). If I claim that I can’tbe happy—that I am a slave to my situation—how can I expect others to be able to act differently?

It also helps to maintain a historicalperspective. I realize that I am not the firstperson to be upset by the state of affairs inthe world. I can learn from the mistakes andsuccesses of those who came before me.

Few people came to an enlightened viewof the world by themselves and overnight.It took me over a year after my first expo-sure to the issues to go vegetarian, andeven longer after that to go vegan. If I hadbeen treated with disgust and anger becauseof my close-mindedness and pathetic (in

retrospect) rationalizations, I would certainlynever have gone veg.

My story is not unique. Not only doesit show the shortcomings of anger and thebenefits of patience, it also indicates thatyou shouldn’t give up on your friends ifthey don’t react to information as youwould like them to. Shunning your friendsbecause they don’t immediately adopt yourvegan views not only cuts you off from the very people we need to reach, it alsoperpetuates the stereotype of the joylessfanatic with no life other than complaining.

“Fighting” suffering is not the only wayto make a better world; creating happinessand joy as part of a thoughtful, compassion-ate life can be an even more powerful toolfor creating change.

As long as there is conscious life onEarth, there will be suffering. The questionbecomes what to do with the existence eachof us is given. We can choose to add ourown fury and misery to the rest, or we canset an example by simultaneously workingconstructively to alleviate suffering whileleading joyous, meaningful, fulfilled lives.

Being a vegan isn’t about deprivation,sobriety, and wallowing in misery. It’s aboutbeing fully aware so as to be fully alive.

777

©B

.Bre

athe

d 20

00

BY MATT BALL

AAnger, Humormor, and AdvocacyAnger, Humormor, and AdvocacyAnger, Humor, and Advocacy

Some Potential ProblemsThere are several traps when it comes tochoosing information. These include:

◆ Starting with a desired claim and selectivelybuilding an argument to support that claim.This can be particularly harmful when the claimis so at odds with conventional wisdom as to be easily dismissed, in which case anythingelse said is tainted or ignored. An example is stating as fact that Jesus was a vegetarianwhen trying to convince someone that they,too, should be vegetarian. Some Christian veg-etarians are drawn to this contention becauseit connects their two strongest beliefs, whilesome activists like the claim because it receivesmedia attention.

In the bigger picture, however, this claim, like others, can serve to harm the overallspread of the vegetarian message. Since theBible portrays Jesus as eating fish, any Christiandevout enough to base their eating habits on what Jesus did will probably believe the

Bible. Others will conclude thatvegetarian advocates will

say anything to promotetheir cause, either by

intentionally lying to the public or by deceivingthemselves.

Carl Sagan wrote: “Extraordinary claims requireextraordinary [i.e. overwhelming and indisput-able] proof.” When we make an extraordinaryclaim without this proof accompanying it, welose credibility. Claims in this category include:75% of U.S. topsoil has been lost, with 85% ofthis directly attributable to raising livestock; anacre of trees disappears in the U.S. every eightseconds; and one burger costs 55 square feetof rainforest.

(While getting my M.S. in Forest Ecology, I worked with people who have done extensivefirst-hand research on tropical deforestation. I also dealt with other foresters, as well aspeople working with the Soil Conservation

Service. As much as I tried, I was unable to find prooffor the above oft-quotedclaims. Rather, I found con-

trary statistics or complexchains of causation.)

Similar claims include: vegetari-anism would extend the world’s

petroleum reserves 20-fold;more than half the water and33% of raw materials used inthe U.S. go to livestock produc-tion; vegetarianism can solve

world hunger; an epidemic ofMad Cow disease is “right around

the corner”; and eating meat causesimpotence. If we are going to make

such extraordinary claims in ourliterature, they must be backed up with

overwhelming proof in that literatureif we expect people to believe them.

◆ Another trap involves a single number froman uncertain range. One example is the claimthat 25% of college males are sterile. Manyyears ago, I gave a pro-veg pamphlet to mycollege advisor (an open-minded individual)who dismissed it out of hand after coming tothis. This is a reasonable reaction becauseresearch on the topic reveals information from

a variety of sources thatindicates 25% is much

too high.

888

In today’s society, it seems that if you don’t scream the loudest, you are not heard.Because moderate voices are often drowned out, it can feel necessary to make fantasticclaims in order to advance your cause.

There is a natural tendency for uncritical acceptance of claims we want to believe. Inthe long run, however, I believe that this causes more harm than good, because we losesupport from people who have come to realize that we are not objective, and we misschances to convince people who are inherently skeptical. Furthermore, most people arelooking for some reason to dismiss us. Thus, it is imperative that we present informationthe public won’t regard as ludicrous and from sources that they won’t dismiss as partisan.

Selecting Informationfor Advocacy

B Y M A T T B A L L

◆ Unwarranted generalization is a relatedproblem, such as taking the results from a singlestudy (e.g., heart attack rates of vegetarianscompared to nonvegetarians) and generalizingthose rates as facts for the entire population.Often this is donewhen there are otherstudies indicatingmore conservativefigures, or evenopposing conclusions.

In THE AMERICAN JOURNAL

OF CLINICAL NUTRITION

(1999:70S), Walter Willettgives an example of the difficulties we face in gettinggood information: “Althoughan association between redmeat consumption and coloncancer has been observed inmany studies, the availableevidence suggests that thereis little such relation withbreast cancer. Within Seventh-day Adventist populations, littleif any reduction in breast cancerincidence has been observed in comparison with the generalpopulation. Positive relationsbetween consumption of redmeat and breast cancer werenoted in a few studies, but atendency to report positiveassociations but not to pub-lish negative findings mayhave resulted in an over-all bias in the literature.”

◆ Some also extrapolate epidemiological datafrom another country to our own. Many activistsuse the results of research done in other culturesas though it necessarily applies to vegans in theU.S. But there are a wide variety of confoundingfactors that make many extrapolations difficult,such as the amount of weight-bearing exercisein women as it relates to osteoporosis, and thefact that very little of this research is done onactual vegans.

◆ Another problem is connecting unrelated orloosely-related facts, such as arguing that one

should be vegan toavoid sterility.

Most people who hear this could, if they desired,easily find information that would indicate thatbeing vegetarian has little to do with sterility—e.g., the Endocrine Society lists nothing relatedto diet as a cause of male infertility.

Judging &PresentingInformationThe general public is constantly beingbombarded with“documented facts”from all sides (e.g.,THE ZONE/low-carb/EAT RIGHT FOR YOUR

TYPE diet gurus).These and others aretotally and passionatelyconvinced of the truth

of their facts. We can’tassume that the public

will be swayed by ourclaims, just because we

too are convinced that ourfacts are correct. We haveto go beyond finding claimsand research that appeal to us, and use materials thatour target audience will findcompelling and convincing.

Specifically, we need to beappropriately skeptical ofclaims which support ourposition, and not dismissive of claims that don’t. The pro-veg case is valid—and noteasily dismissed—even with

less fantastic contentions.

Nutritional InformationIn order not to scare off potential vegans, someadvocates don’t mention any difficulties inbeing vegan. This can backfire by not preparingpeople well for a vegan diet: our experienceindicates there are a large number of peoplewho become vegetarian or vegan, don’t feelhealthy, and go back to meat-eating. As onenutrition professor recently told a director ofVegan Outreach, “You’re the only vegan I know.I know a lot of ex-vegans, but no vegans.”

For example, much vegan advocacy literatureimplies that being vegan reduces the risk ofosteoporosis, and thus, vegans do not need to be worried if they get less calcium and vitamin D than non-vegans (most vegans doget significantly less calcium). However, recentstudies do not show vegans to be more pro-tected from osteoporosis than non-vegans.

Finding & SharingAccurate InformationGetting accurate, complete, and unbiasedinformation can be difficult. Until 1999, someof the information inVegan Outreach’spamphlets hadbeen based onsecondary sources.When we finally hadthe time to go to theoriginal sources, theyoften did not corre-spond to what wasbeing attributed tothem. Even firstsources haveproblems, andthus cannot beviewed in isolation.

Being rigorous andthorough may seemlike an overwhelm-ing task. But inaddition to beingmore effective atreaching our targetaudience, these effortswill increase our confidencein the information we are using,and may even lead to other important factsand understandings.

SSelecting InInformation fn for AdvocacySelecting InInformation fn for AdvocacySelecting Information for Advocacy

999

WHAT IS MEANT BY “RIGHTS”In most of the world, human beingsare granted basic rights. These funda-mental rights are usually (at a mini-mum): the entitlement of individuals to have basic control of their lives andbodies, without infringing on the rightsof others. In other words: the right notto be killed, caged, or experimentedon against their will at the hands ofmoral agents (persons able to under-stand and act from a moral code).It is assumed that the reader believeshumans to have these rights.

A DIFFERENCE OF DEGREEMany say that humans deserve rightswhile other animals do not becausehumans have a greater level of certaincharacteristics: humans are moreintelligent, creative, aware, technologi-cally advanced, dominant, able to uselanguage, able to enter into contracts,able to make moral choices, etc. Thus,humans deserve rights because theyhave a greater degree of these characteristics.

This argument has two problems:n Rights are not relevant to a group (e.g.,

“humans”), but only to individuals. Individuals,not groups, are exploited and are capable ofsuffering and dying; individuals, not groups, aredenied rights when there is a morally relevantreason (e.g., after committing a crime).

n Not all humans possess these character-istics to a greater degree than all other non-humans. There are non-humans who are moreintelligent, creative, aware, dominant, techno-logically advanced (in reference to tool making),and able to use language, thansome humans (such as infants orseverely handicapped humans).Furthermore, many animals per-form actions that, in humans,would be labeled moral behavior;oftentimes some animals act moreethically than many humans. Ifrights were granted at a certainthreshold of intelligence, creativity, moralbehavior, etc., some animals would have rightsand some humans would not.

VALUE TO OTHERSSome say that even though infants do not possess high levels of some characteristics,they should be granted rights because they arevalued by other humans (their parents, forinstance). By this argument, infants themselvesdo not possess any inherent rights, but receivethem only if valued by an adult human.

At the same time, being valued by an adulthuman does not grant rights to pigs, parakeets,pet rocks, or Porsches. This is inconsistent:

either one is granted rights by being valued byan adult human—and thus everything valuedby an adult human has rights—or there mustbe different criteria for granting rights.

People who believe that rights are grantedto infants because of their value to adulthumans would have to admit that infants whoare not valued by other humans could be usedin medical research. Indeed, this would bemorally imperative in order to benefit infantswho are valued by others. Most people wouldcontend, however, that even unvalued orphanshave rights. Therefore, rights must be based onother criteria.

BIOLOGICAL RIGHTSAnother argument is that humans have rightsbecause they belong to the species Homo sapiens. In other words, a chimpanzee mayvery well be as intelligent (or creative, etc.)as some humans, but chimpanzees donot have rights because they are notmembers of the biologically-defined,rights-bearing species, Homo sapiens.

In the past, there have been a numberof biological definitions of what constitutes a species. Today, it is defined genetically.The questions then become:

n Why should rights be deserved solely onthe basis of a certain arrangement of genes?

n Among the genes that determineone’s eye color, etc., which gene is itthat confers rights?

n If rights should be based ongenes, why should the line be drawnat the species level? Why shouldn’t theline be drawn at race, order, phylum,or kingdom?

A thoughtful person might findhaving their rights (or lack thereof)determined by a molecular sequenceto be a bit absurd. It is no better thanbasing rights on the pigmentation ofone’s skin (which is also determinedby the individual’s genetic code).

Consider if we could geneticallyengineer humanoids who were biolog-ically distinct from humans (could notreproduce with humans) but sharedhuman emotions and intelligence.Could we justifiably enslave, experi-ment on, and eat such people?

THE LAWSome argue that infants and the mentallyhandicapped deserve rights because the currentlaws grant them rights. However, legal rightsare not the same as moral rights. Legal rightschange over time and by the whim of public orgovernmental opinion, whereas inherent moralrights do not. For example, the law in NaziGermany did not respect the inherent rights of Jewish people.

ABILITY TO UNDERSTANDABSTRACT CONCEPTSIt has been argued that non-humans do notdeserve rights because they cannot understand

abstract concepts, such as death.Yet anyone who has observedpigs in a slaughterhouse, forexample, would find it difficult notto conclude that pigs understanddeath to the extent that they are

terrified when confronted withit. What more do humans

understand about deaththat is morally relevant?

THE GOLDEN RULEIn the past, humans may

have respected eachother’s rights in orderto survive withoutconstant violence.Many people stillfunction on thislevel. Yet over time,more civilized peo-ple have evolved amoral system that

grants rights not just

101010

THOSE WHO EXPLOIT AND MISTREAT ANIMALS

GENERALLY DEFEND THEIR ACTIVITIES ON THE GROUNDS

THAT ANIMALS LACK EVEN BASIC RIGHTS.

IS THIS TRUE, OR DO PEOPLE DENY ANIMALS RIGHTS

SIMPLY TO RATIONALIZE EXPLOITING THEM?

IN SEARCHING FOR AN HONEST, CONSISTENT ETHIC,IF ONE BELIEVES THAT HUMANS HAVE RIGHTS,

WE FIND THAT THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE GROUNDS

FOR REJECTING RIGHTS FOR ALL OTHER ANIMALS.

If rights should be based on genes, why shouldthe line be drawn at the species level?

Why shouldn’t the line be drawn at race, order,phylum, or kingdom?

BEYONDMIGHT MAKES RIGHTBEYONDMIGHT MAKES RIGHT

by Matt Ball & Jack Norris

for a first-principle discussion, see http://www.veganoutreach.org/ethics.html

based on self-protection, but on the GoldenRule—treat your neighbor as you would liketo be treated. We know that we want to stayalive, do not wish to suffer, etc., and we assumeothers like us have the same desires. Beingcapable of looking beyond our own individualinterests, we apply the Golden Rule even topeople who could not harm us.

How much like us do beings have to bebefore we include them under the Golden Rule?At one time, women were not enough like themen who held power to be granted many rights.Neither were minorities in the United Statesand other societies. Even though the circle hasexpanded to include these individuals in theUnited States, today other animals are still notconsidered sufficiently like us for the majorityof people to treat these animals as our neigh-bors under the Golden Rule.

THE SOULSome would say having a God-given soul iswhat gives one rights. There is no way to provethat humans have souls, just as there is noway to prove that all other animals lack souls.Those who insist that only humans have souls(and thus rights) are faced with a theologicaldilemma: it would require a cruel God to createbeings with the capacity to feel pain and thedesire to live, if these animals’ purpose was to suffer at the hands of humans.

ANIMALS KILL EACH OTHERSome defend humans killing animals on thegrounds that animals kill each other in nature.These people would be hard pressed to showthat our modern systems of animal agricultureor experimentation are “natural.”

While it is true that some animals kill otheranimals in nature, moral philosophy is basedon principles, not excused by the actions ofothers. As Peter Singer writes: “You cannotevade responsibility by imitating beings whoare incapable of making [an ethical] choice.”Some humans assault, rape, or kill otherhumans, yet we do not condone these actions.

APPEALS TO EMOTION ASJUSTIFICATION FOR VIVISECTIONVivisection defenders often use emotional,hypothetical choices to make animal exploita-tion appear necessary. For example, concerningher daughter Claire, who has cystic fibrosis,Jane McCabe wrote in NEWSWEEK (Dec. 26, 1988):“If you had to choose between saving a verycute dog or my equally cute, blond, brown-eyeddaughter, whose life would you choose?…It’s not that I don’t love animals, it’s that I loveClaire more.”

A single dog experiment could never cureher child’s disease, but themoral issue is whetherpersonal attachment justifies harming innocentothers. Since McCabeprobably loves her daughtermore than other children, would she endorseexperimenting on other children (a scientificallymore productive research strategy than exper-imenting on non-human animals) to save her child?

STRICT UTILITARIANISMStill, many people view vivisection as a morally-defensible trade-off of lives. For example, thetransplant surgeon involved in experimentssuch as the baboon heart/Baby Faye operation

assumes that thelife of one humanis worth more thanthat of one baboon.This issue—inter-species transplants

—most clearly demonstrates the problem ofdetermining morality from a utilitarian algebraof worth.

Using simple equations to determine themorality of actions, it would be acceptable totake the life of one human infant to continuethe lives of two other infants in need of organs.Indeed, arguing from the perspective of worth,importance, or priorities, taking the life of oneinfant to extend the lives of two would beimperative. If this is not considered to beacceptable, is the first infantthen “more important” thanthe two who are allowed to die?

Most people will agreethat it is not justifiable to“sacrifice” one human forthe “greater good,” becauseeach human has a right tolive. This right is not to beviolated, regardless of pos-sible benefit to others. Butwhen it comes to animals,they are assumed not tohave this right.

SUFFERINGSearching for some characteristic to justifygranting rights to all humans while denyingrights to all other animals is futile. A moral system based on any of the characteristics discussed so far would either include manynon-human animals or exclude some humans. To have a consistent set of ethics, a character-istic must be found that not only allows for the inclusion of all humans, but is also morallyrelevant. The only characteristic that simplyand consistently meets these requirements is the capacity for suffering.

As Jeremy Bentham, head of the Departmentof Jurisprudence at Oxford University during the19th century, said in reference to his belief thatanimals should be granted moral consideration,“The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor,‘Can they talk?’ But rather, ‘Can they suffer?’”

If a thing cannot suffer, then it does notmatter to that being what happens to it. Forexample, computers have forms of intelligence(in many ways greater than that of any human),but these machines do not care whether theyare turned off or even destroyed.

On the other hand, if a being is able tohave subjective experiences of pleasure andpain, then it does matter—to that individual—what happens to it. Irrespective of intelligence, language, etc., a conscious, sentient being hasinterests in its existence—at the very least toavoid pain and to stay alive. Any completeethic cannot ignore these concerns.

FOR THE LOVE OF ANIMALSThere are many who claim that they love ani-mals and don’t want them to suffer. Few oppose“humane” treatment of animals. But fewer stillare willing to give up their prejudice of humansuperiority. Thus, the distance between theacceptable treatment and the actual, institution-

alized treatment of these animals is greater than ever:

slaughterhouses

BBeyond Might Makes Rs RightBeyond Might Makes Rs RightBeyond Might Makes Right

111111

How much like us do beings have to be beforewe include them under the Golden Rule?

The question is not, Can they reason? nor,Can they talk? But rather, Can they suffer?

211 Indian Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15238 ▪ telephone 412.968.0268 ▪ web site www.veganoutreach.org ▪ email vegan@veganoutreach.org

©Vegan Outreach, 2000Vegan Advocacy, Rev. 11/00

100% recycled paper 50% post-consumer waste

are hidden away from populated areas, andvivisectors’ labs are closed and locked.

Many scientists claim they use animalsonly when it is “absolutely necessary to savehuman lives.” Ignoring the question of whetheror not their contention of necessity is accurateand what is the ethical use of limited resourcesfor medical care and research, these people arebetrayed by their actions: how many vegetarianvivisectors are there? They can hardly argue thatit is necessary for them to kill animals for food.

In general, the animal welfaristposition, which has been endorsed (butsparsely adopted) by the meat industryand pro-vivisection groups, is at oddswith a truly respectful relationshipbased on the recognition of the rightsof other animals. Welfarists concedethat animals have interests, but theseanimals remain human property. Thus, thefundamental interests of the animals remainsecondary to any interests of the owners. Laws based on the welfarist position, such asthe federal Animal Welfare Act, have proven to be almost useless in every practical sense,as any use/abuse of an animal is allowed if deemed “necessary.”

Trying to legislate a humane balancebetween the interests of animals and the interests of humans sounds good in principleand appeals to most. However, given that the current system still allows such atrocities ascanned hunts, castration without anesthesia,factory farms, pain experiments, etc.,animal abuse willcontinue until thecurrent systemrecognizes thatmany animalsare conscious,sentient beingswhose rights areindependent ofthe interests ofhumans.

MIGHT MAKES RIGHTThe children whom the Jane McCabes of theworld hold up to defend vivisection have donenothing to deserve their disease. It is preciselythese children’s innocence that makes theirplight so heartrending. However, anyone whoclaims to be ethical must also ask what animalshave done to deserve being imprisoned incages, being infected with our diseases, andbeing carved up in our labs. No one wouldsuggest that these animals “deserve” to beexploited and killed in experiments. Rather, wekill these healthy, innocent beings because wehave the power to do so and it is convenientfor us. In short, we follow the principle ofMight Makes Right.

The ability to do something does not makeit right. We are capable of many actions thatmost contend are unacceptable—rape, abuse,murder, etc. If we have any claim to “superior-ity,” it comes from our ability to act accordingto moral principles, guided by justice, fairness,and compassion. But we deny our moral abilitywhen we selfishly harm others.

ANIMAL MORALITYEven though rights can only be granted consis-tently and justly on the basis of the capacity to suffer and not on the ability to make moralchoices, there is ample evidence that manyanimals can and do make moral choices, oftento the shame of “superior” humans. As Drs.Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan relate in SHADOWS

OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS:

In the annals of primate ethics, there aresome accounts that have the ring of parable.In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and elec-trically shock an unrelated macaque whoseagony was in plain view through a one-waymirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learningthe ropes, the monkeys frequently refused topull the chain; in one experiment only 13%would do so—87% preferred to go hungry.One macaque went without food for nearlytwo weeks rather than hurt its fellow.Macaques who had themselves been shockedin previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative socialstatus or gender of the macaques had littlebearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

If asked to choose between the humanexperimenters offering the macaques thisFaustian bargain and the macaques them-selves—suffering from real hunger ratherthan causing pain to others—our own moralsympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpsein non-humans a saintly willingness to makesacrifices in order to save others—even thosewho are not close kin. By conventionalhuman standards, these macaques—whohave never gone to Sunday school, never

heard of the Ten Commandments, neversquirmed through a single junior highschool civics lesson—seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their coura-geous resistance to evil. Among thesemacaques, at least in this case, heroismis the norm. If the circumstances were

reversed, and captive humans were offeredthe same deal by macaque scientists, wouldwe do as well? (Especially when there is anauthority figure urging us to administer theelectric shocks, we humans are disturbinglywilling to cause pain—and for a rewardmuch more paltry than food is for a starvingmacaque [cf. Stanley Milgram, OBEDIENCE TO

AUTHORITY: AN EXPERIMENTAL OVERVIEW ].) Inhuman history there are a precious few whosememory we revere because they knowinglysacrificed themselves for others. For each ofthem, there are multitudes who did nothing.

If animals can feel pain as humans can, anddesire to live as humans do, how can we denythem similar respect? As moral beings, how canwe justify our continued exploitation of them?

We must stand up against the idea thatmight makes right. We must question the statusquo which allows the unquestioned infliction of so much suffering. We must act from ourown ethics, rather than blindly follow authorityfigures who tell us it’s okay and even necessaryto harm animals.

Discussing the macaque monkeys whochose to starve rather than inflict pain onanother, Drs. Sagan and Druyan conclude,“Might we have a more optimistic view of thehuman future if we were sure our ethics wereup to their standards?”

If animals can feel pain as humans can,and desire to live as humans do,

how can we deny them similar respect?

Many of the photos in this booklet were providedcourtesy of Farm Sanctuary, Green Acres Sanctuary,and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.