Does the "Ends Justify the Means" Argument Align with Veganism?
"You are personally responsible for becoming more ethical than the society you grew up in."
-Eliezer Yudkowsky
Case by Case
When it comes to veganism, there is often an attitude that the goal of animal liberation justifies certain actions which we wouldn't ordinarily support. To further explore if the ends truly justify the means, we'll be taking a look at two case studies -- Impossible Foods' animal testing and activists' use of the word holocaust -- to determine how they align with veganism and how they influence the general public's perception.
Case One: Impossible Foods
In order to create plant-based heme iron -- soy leghemoglobin -- for their burgers, Impossible Foods made the decision to test its safety on rats. Though the heme had been "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) by experts, the FDA requires animal testing to be officially GRAS certified, and Impossible Foods made the decision that FDA approval would be more important in the long term to save the most animals.1
Alignment with Veganism
Obviously, anything tested on animals would, under most circumstances, immediately fail the vegan test, but because this was only a one-time test required by the government, the waters become somewhat muddied. It should be noted, however, that FDA certification is not required, but it does open more avenues into the general (e.g., carnist) marketplace.1 Beyond Meat, on the other hand, has a nearly identical product -- and, arguably, even more notoriety -- but never tested on animals because they found a way to make their product "meaty" and "bloody" without heme.
Additionally, though Pat Brown, CEO of Impossible Foods, claimed that "[n]obody is more committed or working harder to eliminate exploitation of animals than Impossible Foods," that contradicts some of their other actions, including serving animal-based foods with their products at a natural health foods expo and sharing recipes containing animal-based foods on their social media pages.1
Public Perception
The general public is largely unaware of Impossible Foods' foray into animal testing, and many are only vaguely familiar with the brand because of their wild success at Burger King. Overall, they have achieved their goal -- market infiltration -- with the "sacrifice" of those rats and have likely prevented thousands of deaths by making plant-based foods less alien to the public. It can be concluded that the means justified their ends, though they, of course, were not the ones paying the ultimate price.
Case Two: Holocaust
Comparing nonhuman and human suffering has occurred for years in the animal rights movement, though it has more recently been making headlines. Particularly with the sensitivity surrounding current events in the United States, the terms holocaust and Animal Holocaust have been the subject of significant backlash within the vegan community.
Alignment with Veganism
Though veganism doesn't expressly extend to other social justice issues, many feel that veganism should incorporate compassion and empathy to humans in addition to nonhumans. Because of the visceral reaction drawn by the comparison between the WWII genocide and the executions of nonhuman animals, many argue that use of the word holocaust is superfluous to good activism and does more harm than good.
Holocaust is a noun like any other, but it is most often used as a proper noun, the Holocaust; therefore, the two versions are often conflated. By using language that associates the WWII Holocaust with another holocaust, it's often perceived as a form of diminishing the very real suffering of the people who were murdered decades ago and those suffering or experiencing discrimination today.
Ideally, this speciesism wouldn't exist and we wouldn't need to use euphemisms to tiptoe around the fact that nonhumans experience feelings similar to humans, making their suffering just as unacceptable and inhumane, but for the time being, it may behoove us to use other words -- genocide, massacre, mass murder, annihilation -- that draw similar evocative responses.
Public Perception
Triggering words like holocaust are often used in other contexts (e.g., a "nuclear holocaust") but rarely, if ever, receive similar levels of criticism because they are said in regards to other forms of human death or abuse. While making bold claims about an Animal Holocaust may be an easy method for gaining media attention and pushing forward the truth of animal exploitation, it may turn off more individuals by making that the tagline for veganism; most people don't want to associate themselves with an ideology that directly compares human and nonhuman suffering.
However, setting the speciesism aside, we can't deny that there are still very real issues concerning anti-semitism in our society, and it paints veganism in a bad light to be in any way associated with that, irrespective of its truthfulness. Since we should seek to think, speak, and act in ways that extend kindness to all, we should take concerns regarding the use of this word seriously.
be conscious, be kind, be vegan
Related posts you may enjoy:
"Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare"
"Is Cross-Contamination Anti-Vegan?"