On Morality: Intent Vs. Consequence – Why “Good People” And “Evil People” Don’t Actually Exist

 Duality 01

I don’t think “evil” is something that “exists.”

By which I mean to say that I don’t believe in the idea that evil is a physical force which hovers in the air and enters people and makes them do things. Nor do I believe in the idea that “some people are ‘evil’ but some people are ‘good’.”

Many people throughout history, no less on social media recently, have expressed the idea that specific people or groups of people “are evil” based on their actions towards human or nonhuman animals. This can range from simply saying that non-Vegans in general are bad people, to saying that hunters are worse than others, saying that people who torture animals are the worst, saying that pedophiles are all monsters, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

However, the idea that “some people are evil, and some people are good” doesn’t make much objective sense. All humans have the capability to perform actions that seem either “evil” or “good”, depending on the perspective of the person performing the action, as well as the person observing the action. Because of this, the very idea that some actions are “good” and some are “evil” doesn’t really make much sense either.

This is not to say that some actions are not destructive or harmful. But ascribing the term “evil” to a person because of an action that they’ve committed, as if simply using that term puts the action into a category that divorces it or the doer from all complexity or renders the doer incapable of being anything other than “evil” is far too simplistic and narrow-minded.

Our human concept of morality itself is an automatic, logical response to the recognition that each being who is capable of feeling pain has an individual interest in not suffering. This recognition is the basis for our notion of whether individuals have such things as “rights.” A “right” is merely a term that we use to mean that we agree to a rule that allows us to protect an interest that we all have. Chief among the “rights” that individuals have is the right to not be used as merely a replaceable resource for human pleasure and other non-necessary (aka non-survival, non-health) interests.

Our human system of justice is based on the notion of a human interest in creating a “social order”; this order aims to regulate our behavior in a way which induces the most happiness, satisfaction and “good health” in general in as many of the members of our moral community as possible, and the least unhappiness, despair and other forms of suffering. But this is only because we recognize that individuals who are capable of suffering have this right to not be made to suffer for the non-necessary interests of a human.

Now, from a purely practical perspective (before even considering any abstract notions of moral philosophy) if we examine the ideas advanced by Chaos Theory – for instance – we see that any choice we make between a wide array of possible actions means that our chosen action will affect everything else in the world. So basically, everything that happens in the world is a product of a near-infinite number of different actions that are performed by everyone and everything in reality over “the course of time” (since by our commonly-held perspective, time is linear, even though from what we can figure out scientifically, it most likely is not).

This seems to indicate that any action we commit could have a near-infinite array of both positive and negative consequences. Indeed, each action, as well as each of the consequences which automatically follow from it, could seem either positive OR negative OR both from the perspective of the beings both observing and being affected by them (This has been recognized already for thousands of years by some cultures).

So taking all this into account, how do we determine whether an action that affects others is morally right or wrong? Its simple: we must start by asking whether their are other beings who can feel pain who could become a victim of our actions. Since our actions could be seen as either positive or negative depending on who’s perspective they’re being seen from, it should need no explanation why we should be using the perspective of a potential victim as the measuring stick, and not the perspective of a potential victimizer.

It’s not just the actions or the consequences which determine whether something is right or wrong, but our perspective on those actions and consequences. So that is the ruling factor in whether we should commit an action or not; our own knowledge of whether or not we ourselves perceive our intent and our resultant action to be morally justifiable, based on whether we know if others may or may not be harmed by them unnecessarily. In other words, we must endeavor to commit only actions that have the best chance of causing the least harm through causing the least violations of the rights of others.

In my estimation, this would indicate that the consequences of our actions have absolutely no bearing on our moral culpability. Our actions obviously need to follow logically from our intent, but only our intent means anything when we are determining whether an action fits within our notion of moral responsibility. In other words, only our intent, not the consequences of our actions, should give someone the ability to morally blame us or morally praise us.

People often try to prove the argument that evil people exist with the assertion “But there definitely are people who are evil. I know this is true because this person committed this, this or this horrible action.”

But the point that someone committed an immoral action is not proof that the person in question is evil. This is merely a list of wrong-actions that the person committed. Their actions can be morally justifiable, or not morally justifiable (what we call “immoral”) but that doesn’t make the person “immoral,” nor does it make them “moral.” Everyone, even those who have committed the most heinous acts, has the ability within themselves to change their moral stance so that they are never again going to commit such acts.

Many people often try to counter that argument with the assertion “But this person never did change, so this proves that they were evil. They committed those actions, never regretted it, and died without repenting. This means that they were evil.” But this argument doesn’t prove that at all. All it proves is that the person in question didn’t change, not that they couldn’t have, if they’d lived longer or encountered the right set of circumstances. No human has been proven to be able to predict the future, so saying that we know whether someday someone will change or not is nonsense. There are amazing stories of people who have committed the most heinous actions doing a complete moral “about-face” years afterwards. Add to this point the fact that there are plenty of people who, for one reason or another, have never let on about the regret they felt for their actions. In other words, we often have no way of knowing who will change their moral stance in a specific way, when they will change, or in many cases, even whether they’ve changed at all.

Even putting aside the obvious problems with considering people evil from a rational standpoint, there is a moral problem with just dismissing someone as evil before you’ve seen how their life will turn out. This is because it doesn’t take into consideration the fact that people are eminently capable of changing their moral actions based on new perspectives. In fact, the only real constant in human behavior is change. To dismiss or condemn the entirety of the person as morally worthless based on some of their actions is illogical from a moral standpoint as well.

Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of factors involved in the viewpoints of various people on the myriad actions one could commit and how they relate to morality. In many cases, the intent of a person is to do good, but they are merely confused or unsure what the best course of action is. Some people have been heavily indoctrinated regarding whether an action or set of actions is morally justifiable or not, in various ways and regarding different kinds of beings. Some are more indoctrinated than others, and fear, especially when it’s not even consciously recognized by the fearful, is an incredibly powerful obstacle to moral consistency. There is also the existence of mental disorders, both created by physiological elements and also those related to trauma. These are only a few of the things that often cause perfectly “morally conscious” people to say or do immoral things.

The point is, when we consider the question of how we should be responding to the actions and even the arguments used by non-Vegans to attempt to justify their actions regarding nonhumans, we should keep in mind that we’re not dealing with monsters. We’re dealing with humans, and humans are fallible. They are also capable of massive changes in their moral stance as well as incredible acts of bravery and kindness. I personally have met or have heard the stories from many people who now identify as Vegans and would never have considered going Vegan (and some, in fact, who were die-hard anti-Vegans beforehand, including trophy hunters and slaughterhouse workers) if someone hadn’t been compassionate enough to forgive them and then educate them peacefully on why it’s wrong to use animals. If not for this, they would still be enthusiastically exploiting nonhumans to this day. They themselves admit this. If we want the people who are harming animals for palate pleasure and/or simple convenience, who would otherwise consider ending that behavior, to consider Veganism, then we have to be willing to put our hatred aside and educate them with understanding instead of condemning them. Representing them as evil (or even “sociopathic,” “psychotic, etc.) to others merely causes them (and other people) to avoid our message about the rights of nonhumans.

Another point to consider: Many of our family and friends may be non-Vegan. They are inflicting just as much unnecessary suffering and death by living that way as any other non-Vegan. Are we ok with considering them “evil” as well? If not, we’re just arbitrarily picking and choosing whom we consider to be evil based on our own fits of anger, random self-interests, or whims. Almost all Vegans were non-Vegan at some point, probably including the person reading this (you). Were we evil? Were you? Doesn’t that mean you are still evil? If we think people are one or the other, good or evil, then where is the line? Where do we draw a line and say that this set of actions makes someone evil, but this other set of actions doesn’t? And who is the authority to draw that line? What makes one person’s opinion on what makes someone evil better than some other person’s completely different (and usually contradictory) opinion?

In summation, it’s irrational, not to mention cruel, to just dismiss someone as evil before you’ve seen how their life will turn out. And publicly stating that someone is evil is a great way to guarantee that they, and probably at least a few other non-Vegans, will refuse to go Vegan, which means that the nonhuman animals lose. Is that what we’re trying to accomplish? Is some sort of catharsis where we obtain a few moments of sick pleasure from publicly vilifying another person (which is almost always due to our own shame because we once engaged in the same non-Vegan actions that they currently are engaging in) worth the very real lives and suffering of nonhumans?

Veganism is a movement of peace. If you think animals have moral value, then follow the path of peace, towards human animals and nonhuman animals alike. Live Vegan. Educate others peacefully about why they need to live Vegan as well.

Yin-Yang 02

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Advertisements

What we ask for, what we get ….

“As vegans, we all know that the world won’t go vegan overnight. Goodness, if we didn’t know, we’re reminded often enough. But likewise, we have to realise that there’s a big difference between compromising on material aspirations and compromising the rights of others; we have to keep our focus on who we’re fighting for. Just as I experienced with bullying, we all know that destructive behaviour isn’t going to stop overnight but that does not change the limits of the compromise that we are entitled to make.

Firstly we have a duty to our victims to educate those who needlessly harm them with use, that they, the victims, have a right to live unharmed and not to be used by our species as if they were our resources. Likewise those who are not vegan have the right to know that the myths they were taught about the necessity of harming others were completely false.

We owe everyone the absolute truth, that the only way that any of us can live true to our own values is to become vegan”

Read more of this incredible post:

Source: What we ask for, what we get ….

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s incredible for the animals, easy and great for you, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, cis-sexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Abolitionist Vegan Memes From The Legacy

I’ve been thinking about making a page for the memes I made for a while now.

General thoughts on Veganism and Animal Rights:

Non-Vegans 01

How do you Veganize a welfarist meme? Advocate Veganism and nothing less:

10341519_10152259723599475_5668809657099703666_n

10441179_10152271482887017_613685663544323024_n

10516922_873942382633306_2071239837_n

A little humor and awareness combined:

Cognitive Dissonance 01

PETA kills 01

Green Party member 01

The Preducator:

The Preducator 01

Tradition tho:

Tradition Though 01

Those ****ing Vegans…:

Fucking Vegans 01

Welception:

Welception 01

Defensive Welfarist Bingo:

Defensive Welfarist Bingo 01

That’s it for now. Hopefully soon I can get back on my desktop and make some more

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

The Green Party In Ct. Recognizes Sentience, But Will They Recognize Morality?

imggreen

Someone on my friend’s list who is a fellow Green Party member in Ct. recently posted this:

“I’m excited to announce that history was made last night when the Connecticut Green Party voted unanimously to accept my proposal to form an Animal Rights Committee. Based on the principles set forth in the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (2012), numerous countries/states/provinces are defining non-human animals as “sentient beings,” changing their status from “property” to “person,” thus granting them rights and protections similar to human beings (Quebec, New Zealand most recently). All those in attendance recognized the urgent need for this important work, and I’m proud to see the Connecticut Green Party aligned with this position and taking a leadership role in animal protection policy making.”

They then went on to make a separate comment, that I totally agree with, about how we need to stand up for nonhumans every chance we get.

Someone else then responded to the OP, saying:

“Defining nonhuman animals as sentient beings appears in no way to alter their status as things or grant them the status of person for any purpose or grant them any legal rights. As I travel, I ask lawyers in those jurisdictions whether they believe that the use of “sentient beings” is anything but symbolic. No one has told me that it actually means something.”

In regards to the first half of the OP’s post and the respondent’s comments, here is my response (names withheld out of courtesy for the aformentioned):

“As a longtime member of the Green Party (25 years!) and a committed Abolitionist Vegan living in Ct., I have to agree with the reply quoted above. I want to first say that I agree completely with the second half of your post. We should definitely stand up for nonhumans whenever we get the chance, and I applaud your intentions. However, if our efforts on behalf of nonhumans are to mean anything we simply need to educate every person we can on the fact that Veganism is the non-negotiable moral baseline. This means that we explain to them that just recognizing nonhumans as sentient is not enough; we must take a strong, clear stance that if nonhumans matter morally, the only sensible thing to do is stop using them in any way.”

For you who are reading this post, in the USA the Green Party is one of the more progressive political parties around. However, they are still quite resistant to Veganism on the whole and have not yet officially embraced it. I’ve written quite a few blog posts on the subject of nonhuman rights. Perhaps some of you could show some of them to the Green Party members you interact with, if you do so?:

How we need to be educating people on Veganism:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/create-new-vegans

A basic simple explanation of what Animal Rights means in relation to Veganism:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/the-argument-for-veganism

Factual, logical proof that human animals and nonhuman animals are morally equal:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/are-humans-superior

An explanation of why the only coherent and consistent moral stance is the principle behind Veganism:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/the-moral-baseline

All the info you will ever need on whether a non-Vegan diet is optimally healthy or not:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/do-doctors-think

Massive amounts of info on how humans exploiting nonhumans is destroying this planet:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/ecological-problems

Hundreds of links to info on why it’s wrong for human animals to use nonhuman animals as replaceable resources:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Chicken Exploiters, Hampton Creek, Reverse “False-Flags,” And Why We Need To Increase Our Educational Efforts

1466025_824329134265237_4948328308118496969_n

Recently, there’s been quite some talk about the fact that the egg industry is up in arms over Hampton Creek and their awesome Vegan Mayonnaise:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/06/usda-american-egg-board-paid-bloggers-hampton-creek

This kind of thing makes me think maybe it could be a diversionary operation by industry instead (I’m stating right now that I’m not claiming that it’s more or less likely than any other scenario, this is only my perspective and a guess).

If you think about it, it’s brilliant. Let’s say that for the sake of argument, educating people about Veganism is the biggest threat to industry, and a much smaller, but equally morally justifiable threat is Vegan food startups. What is your best play, if you’re industry?

Well, you might consider finding a company that isn’t a huge threat to industry and making a big scene about how you think they’re a huge threat to you, in order to divert attention from the real threat. This would get advocates who aren’t sure what the best form of activism is, but who are trying to figure it out so they can devote more of their resources to that, to focus on Vegan startups, and takes away interest in AbVegan Educational Efforts.

In a normal False Flag Operation, Entity A (AbVegan Education) moves against Entity B (Industry) in a way that makes it seem like Entity C (Vegan Food Startup Company) carried out the operation unassisted, to keep everyone ignorant of the fact that Entity A was responsible. In this version, Entity B is making it seem like Entity C attacked them in order to divert people’s attention away from joining the bigger threat to them, which is the one that holds the only chance of winning (AbVegan Education, aka Entity A). I’m going to dub this idea “The Reverse False Flag” maneuver.

Notice that nowhere in there did I say that we shouldn’t create Vegan startups or that we can’t educate while doing so, or anything like that? We can most definitely do both at one time. But the more important action we should take is to increase our efforts to educate. Everything else we do should enable and accommodate that.

Here’s how we need to educate others on Veganism:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/create-new-vegans

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

What To Say When Someone Says “What Would The Animals Choose?”

Battery Cages 01

The notion that a nonhuman, if granted the ability to understand human communication and then given the choice between a bigger cage for themselves or freedom at some unnamed future time for their descendants, would choose to not sacrifice their own life or endure suffering for their descendants, is speciesist, pure and simple.

It assumes that other species, if given a human-capable choice, would not be capable of choosing a noble sacrifice in the same way as a human would. Put simply, it’s a product of the mindset that humans are morally superior to nonhumans and that we are the only ones who are awesome enough to make correct decisions for everyone else based on what we deem necessary for them, based on our undeniably limited understanding and arbitrarily self-created hierarchy of different beings various interests, needs and preferences.

In reality, our decisions are based on what we in our arrogance believe to be the flaws in others that we don’t have in ourselves. So if we feel that humans would be incapable of sacrificing our own lives or enduring incredible suffering for our offspring or sacrificing the lives or suffering of our offspring to ensure freedom for billions of our descendants, we of course assume that no other beings would be capable of doing the same. After all, they’re not human, so they must be less than us, not greater, right?

I think that if we asked all the nonhumans whether they would rather see humans scattered in our advocacy, engaging in speciesist single-issue campaigns, promoting bigger cages, vegetarianism, “open rescues” and other such nonsense, with a good chance of random instances of slightly better immediate conditions for them (What I’m saying here is that this is the idea that humans would present to the nonhumans, not that that is the outcome in reality), or if they would rather see every single “activist” doing nothing except strong, clear Creative Non-Oppressive Vegan Advocacy which has a great chance of freeing all animals in the future (and even if this weren’t true, is still the only morally justifiable choice, as well as still being much more effective than SICs), I think the answer would be clear. Just like the majority of human slaves would choose to have slavery ended completely in the future rather than slightly better conditions in the present, if nonhumans could understand the question, they would choose Abolitionist Vegan Education, and nothing less.

If you want to actually learn rational arguments as to why SICs and other such actions are counter-productive to Animal Rights, check out these links:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/welfare-watch

If you are really interested in helping animals, stop the Single-Issue Campaigns and do this instead:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/create-new-vegans

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

Jesus Is Not A Justification For Living Non-Vegan

Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.

I’ve posted religious arguments for Veganism before, the most notable one being here. Recently I’ve found dozens of verses in the Christian bible condemning the unnecessary harm of nonhuman animals. I will be making another post on this as soon as possible. In the meantime, A friend of mine on Facebook named Thomas Crotzer posted this text from The Nazarene Way:

~ Thou Shalt Not Kill ~
Exodus 20:13 – Deuteronomy 5:17

The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack which accurately translates as “any kind of killing whatsoever.”

The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack. One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay – has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that “tirtzach” refers to “any kind of killing whatsoever.” The word “lo,” as you might suspect, means “thou shalt not.”

Many Bible scholars persist with the theory that Christ ate animal flesh, obviously swayed in their opinions by personal habits. The desire to accede to prejudice and uphold existing tradition has been a human characteristic for many centuries, but truth appears now even more important as man exerts his independence in so many aspects of life.

Respected Bible scholar Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore has researched the frequent use of the word “meat” in the New Testament Gospels. He traced its meaning to the original Greek.

His findings were first published in World Forum of Autumn, 1947. He reveals that the nineteen Gospel references to “meat” should have been more accurately translated thus:

Greek word, number of references and actual meaning.

Broma 4 “Food”

Brosis 4 “The act of eating”

Phago 3 “to eat”

Brosimos 1 “That which is eaten”

Trophe 6 “Nourishment”

Prosphagon 1 “Anything to eat”

Thus, the Authorized Version of John 21:5, .’Have ye any meat?” is incorrect. It should have been translated: “Have ye anything to eat?”

“Fish” is another frequently mistranslated word in the Bible. Its reference is often not to the form of swimming life, but to the symbol by which early Christians could identify each other. It was a secret sign, needed in times of persecution, prior to official acceptance of Christianity as a state religion.

The sign of the fish was a mystical symbol and conversational password. Its name deriving from the Greek word for fish, “ichthus” Much later it was represented an acrostic, composed of leading letters of the Greek phrase, “Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter”-“Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.”

Frequent references to fish are intended as symbolic of The Christ and have nothing to do with the act of eating a dead fish. But the symbol of the fish did not meet with Roman approval. They preferred the sign of the cross, choosing to concentrate more on the death of Christ than on His brilliant life. Perhaps this is one reason only ten percent of His life record appears in the canonical scriptures. Most of His first thirty years has been omitted.

Various “Translations” of the 6th Commandment

‘Thou shalt not kill any living thing,’ for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not man taketh it away. ~Jesus, Gospel of the Holy Twelve, (earliest known recorded words of Jesus)

“Thou shalt not kill.” ~Exodus 20:13 Authorized version of King James

“You shall not murder.” ~New International Version

This is only one of many compelling arguments showing that even the words contained in the book most revered by Christians don’t justify unnecessary harm of nonhuman animals.

If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.

To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
https://legacyofpythagoras.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/master-list-of-vegan-info