The Oxford Dictionary says that veganism is the “abstention from or avoidance of all food or other products of animal origin.”¹https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=veganism The Cambridge dictionary says it is “the practice of not eating or using any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather” ²https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/veganism In light of this, vegans often argue against eating animals. One of the arguments they use is represented in the following question.

What property exists in the human that does not exist the in the non human animals that justifies us killing the non human animals for food?

I assume that the goal of the question is to demonstrate that different properties or identical properties between animals and humans somehow imply a moral obligation not to eat them. But, this presents a problem in itself. Because if there are different properties or identical properties, then what Is it about those properties that necessitate eating or not eating animals? in other words,  why does the possession or exclusion of the property between humans and animals necessitate eating or not eating them? this gets into the issue of The “is and ought.”

The Is-Ought problem

Just because something “is,” does not mean that an “ought” is derived from it – at least from the non-Christian perspective.. Nevertheless, from the vegan’s perspective, she has a problem. The condition of the ‘is’ deals with the possession or non-possession of any particular properties and that from those properties (or lack thereof) an “ought” is derived. But how does the vegan justify a moral ought from a set of properties or lack thereof? Just saying that if animals don’t possess all the properties or do possess all the properties of humans, that we ought not to eat them does not make it so.

Corollary

Furthermore, it implies using humans as the standard against which we should compare animals. But, this is an assumption without validity. On the surface, it may seem proper to use humans as a standard of properties with which we compare animals. But why ought we do that? You see, the vegan, in the above question, assumes humans as the standard of possessed properties. Now anyone can assume anything they want to build an argument on it. But is it valid? Why ask the question that way? Why not reverse it and ask, “What property exists in the nonhuman does not exist in the human that justifies us killing the nonhuman animals for food?

One of the dangers of assuming any particular starting point, whether human or nonhuman, is that the assumption is subjective. It is not based upon a universal norm from which all people “ought” to begin. If a vegan were to appeal to a proposed universal (apart from the Trinitarian God), How would he or she justify that universal norm?

Killing plants

Vegans focus on consuming non-animal products. Okay, that is their right. But what about the morality of eating plants? I have a question for them.

What property exists in the human that does not exist the plants that justifies us killing the plants for food?

You see, we can ask the same question regarding plants. When the vegan goes to mow his lawn, is he not decapitating millions of blades of grass? If he uses weed killer in his yard, is he not killing undesirable plants with chemicals that slowly cause their deaths? When he sits down and prepares his meal, is he not dissecting, ripping apart, and sometimes bathing plants in intense heat to prepare a meal? And, doesn’t he throw more plants (herbs), as well as seasoning with which he makes the grinding and crushing of plants in his mouth more enjoyable?

So what properties distinguish plants from humans? Well, to begin with, humans are self-conscious, and plants are not. But wait, as far as we know, animals are not self-conscious. Humans create art, poetry, machinery, and can reason using the laws of logic.  as far as I’m aware,  plants and animals don’t do these things. So,  there certainly are differences citing differences doesn’t connect the dots between those differences and the moral right to eat animals – or plants. The vegan has a big problem on his ‘plate.’

Christian theology

In Christianity, God is the ultimate standard of morality. He reveals what is right and wrong out of His character. In Christianity, the is-ought problem goes away. This is because God is the ultimate standard of morality. Ultimate means there’s nothing equal to or greater than. Since God is the creator, He has revealed to us the moral obligations we have before Him. He is the universal standard. His moral obligations are found in Scripture within the Scriptures. God permits us to eat animals.

• Gen. 9:3, “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.”
• Lev. 11:1–3, “The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, 2 ‘Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, “These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat.”‘”
• Acts 10:12–13, “and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!””

In Christian theology, the vegan is free to not eat animals. But, the vegan does not have the moral right to impose his preference upon others. After all, he has no universal moral standard by which it can justify what ought or not ought be done. If he were to try to appeal to a universal moral standard, then we must ask what justifies that standard as being the right one? And, if he were to express his opinion that  eating animals is wrong, that’s fine. But it doesn’t make it wrong.

Summary

The summary is listed as a set of questions that I hope, vegans would try and answer.

1. What Is it about the similar or identical properties between humans and animals that necessitates eating or not eating them?
2. How does the vegan bridge the is-ought problem as it relates to properties that necessitate moral obligation?
3. How does the vegan justify eating plants  based on the similarity or differences of properties between humans and them?
4. what universal  moral system does the  vegan have  that condemns  eating animals?
5.  what universal moral system does the vegan have a justifies eating plants?