Διάλογοι περί ηθικής χορτοφαγίας

by Michael Huemer

Κάθε χρόνο σφάζονται 74 δισεκατομμύρια ζώα, των οποίων η σύντομη ζωή εξαντλήθηκε μέσα στο οδυνηρό περιβάλλον των βιομηχανικών εκτροφείων. Είναι σωστό να αγοράζουμε προϊόντα που προέρχονται από βιομηχανικά εκτροφεία;

Δύο σπουδαστές φιλοσοφίας, ένας χορτοφάγος και ένας κρεοφάγος, αναπτύσσουν μια συζήτηση γύρω από το ζήτημα της ηθικής χορτοφαγίας. Μέσα σ’ ένα διάστημα τεσσάρων ημερών εξετάζουν ερωτήματα όπως το εάν οι καταναλωτές ευθύνονται για τη βαναυσότητα των βιομηχανικών εκτροφείων, πώς η νοημοσύνη επηρεάζει τη σημαντικότητα του πόνου, εάν η ηθική προστατεύει εκείνους που δεν μπορούν να την κατανοήσουν, γιατί οι θέσεις των υπερασπιστών των ζώων ακούγονται ακραίες και γιατί πολλοί άνθρωποι που αποδέχονται τα επιχειρήματα υπέρ της χορτοφαγίας αδυνατούν να κάνουν τη μετάβαση σε μια αναίμακτη διατροφή.

Οι διάλογοι καλύπτουν το σύνολο των συνηθισμένων επιχειρημάτων που αρθρώνονται στις σχετικές συζητήσεις και συνοδεύονται από μια περιεκτική σχολιασμένη βιβλιογραφία.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Animals, Vegan, Food, Vegetarianism

160 pages, Paperback

Published October 1, 2020

Reviews

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I turned this into a free audiobook

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6...

Amazing. If you're thinking about the morality of meat, start here.

[سیاووش · Rating 4 out of 5]

۱. بالاخره یکی از میلیون‌ها کتاب در حال خوندنم رو تموم کردم! پیشرفت!
۲. کتاب همون طور که از اسمش پیداست در قالب مکالمه و بحثه. و بحث‌هاش واقعاً خوبن، این‌طوری نیست که اون یارویی که طرفدار گوشتخواریه ابله باشه و چیزی برای گفتن نداشته باشه و تقریباً تمام استدلال‌هایی که تا حالا در دفاع گوشتخواری شنیده‌م رو می‌آره و ازشون دفاع می‌کنه. بسیار هم آدم رو به فکر فرو می‌بره و خیلی هم راحت و روونه. ترجمه هم معرکه است.
۳. باید در مورد وضعیت و آمارهای دامداری صنعتی تو ایران بخونم ولی نمی‌دونم از کجا.

[Andrew Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book! My complaint is just that M was too willing to give up on his good arguments. When M asks V how many animals he's kill before killing a human, V just says that it's besides the point. The question could go like this: In a trolley problem, how many pigs would have to be on the right side before you'd divert the train to a single child on the left side? 10? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000? For me, the number is pretty damn high which suggests (I think) that there is some reason for supposing that humans should be given lexical priority over non-humans. Whatever the reason for that lexical priority (which does not have to be the one proposed by Huemer of the ability to feel particular pleasures) may be the reason that humans can permissibly inflict pain on animals for small amounts of pleasure. I had a similar issue with M not pressing the bug issue. Nonetheless, great book. Makes me think. Could be the beginning of a big change, not sure yet.

[Dosia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Świetny przewodnik po niuansach argumentów etycznych przemawiających za dietą weg*ńską. Forma dialogu sprawnie odsłania i rozwiewa wiele wątpliwości. Do tego przypisy pełne dodatkowych źródeł i posłowie zawierające praktyczne wskazówki co zrobić ze świeżo nabytymi przekonaniami (jak gotować, co kupować, kogo wspierać w Polsce).
Ogólnie żałuję, że nie przeczytałam tej książki kiedy sama odstawiałam mięso. Nawet teraz sporo się z niej dowiedziałam.

Tytuł polecam zarówno przychylnym wegetarianizmowi, jak i sceptykom :)

[Niklas · Rating 5 out of 5]

"At its heart, the question is: do I support something that causes enormous pain and suffering, for the sake of minor benefits for me? That’s it. It’s not “Are human lives more valuable than animal lives”? It’s not “Are there objective values?” or “Are there rights?” or “What’s the basis for rights?” It’s just about causing great suffering for small gains." (Michael Huemer)

Simply put, this book convinced me that eating meat is wrong. It's also a lesson in how good philosophy is done.

[Jakob]

"At its heart, the question is: do I support something that causes enormous pain and suffering, for the sake of minor benefits for me? That's it."

A good survey of the main philosophical arguments for ethical vegetarianism (and veganism), also airing the most common counterarguments (Huemer is clearly more sympathetic to the former than the latter). It touches on most of the relevant relevant questions related to this issue. Also includes a good bibliography.

[Mountainroot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Δεν είμαι χορτοφάγος.
Το βιβλίο το επέλεξα γιατί ήθελα να διαβάσω να ακούσω και αυτή την πλευρά και είχα ακούσει καλά λόγια.
Δεν θα πάρω θέση στο ζήτημα της χορτοφαγίας και απλά θα μείνω στο κομμάτι του βιβλίου.

Λοιπόν το βιβλίο το βρήκα εξαιρετικό.
Καταρχήν είναι όλο σε μορφή διαλόγου. Δύο φίλοι με το όνομα Χ και Κ κάνουν 4 γεύματα σε ένα εστιατόριο και συζητάνε για το θέμα τις χορτοφαγίας.
Οπότε το κείμενο κυλάει εύκολα και ευχάριστα σαν να συζητούσατε και εσείς οι ίδιοι με έναν φίλο σας για οποιαδήποτε θέμα.

Ο συγγραφές έχει παραθέσει όλες τις πηγές του στο τέλος καθώς και ανάλυση των σκέψεων πάνω στις οποίες στηρίζει αυτά που λέει. Πάρα πολύ καλή κίνηση και βοήθημα που με εξέπληξε ευχάριστα.

Τα δύο μόνο αρνητικά που βρήκα είναι
1. Υπάρχουν λογικά σφάλματα και κενά στην συλλογιστική του χορτοφάγου αλλά αυτό δεν νομίζω ότι μειώνει το σύνολο του βιβλίου και αυτό που σου αφήνει απο ΟΛΕΣ αυτές τις θέσεις που εξηγεί.
2.Τα 2 άτομα δεν είναι ίσα. Πρακτικά ο χορτοφάγος είναι έτοιμος, ενημερωμένος, με απαντήσεις για όλα και μελέτες με στατιστικές και ο κρεατοφάγος απλά είναι εκεί για να λέει τις πολύ βασικές αξίες και λόγους που τρώμε κρέας. Παίζει τον ρόλο του εκπρόσωπου του μεγαλύτερου μέρους των ανθρώπων με το τι πιστεύουν ότι είναι και κάνουν οι χορτοφάγοι. Οπότε ο διάλογος πάει περισσότερο στο να λέει ο ένας κάτι πολύ κλασσικό και ο άλλος να το αποδομεί. Δεν είναι σε βαθμό που σε χαλάει στην ανάγνωση απλά το αναφέρω για να ξέρετε τι να περιμένετε.

Στο σύνολο το βρήκα ένα καταπληκτικό βιβλίο που το προτείνω σε αρκετά άτομα να το διαβάσουν. Η επιχειρηματολογία περί της χορτοφαγίας αγγίζει και άλλα πράγματα στην ζωή μας και με έβαλε σε σκέψεις σε άλλα θέματα.

Το βρήκα μία καταπληκτική δουλειά στο σύνολό της και το προτείνω και σε άλλους χορτοφάγους και μη.

[Séverine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Végétarienne assumée, j'ai lu cet essai en sachant d'avance que j'étais du côté de "V". Nombre de ses arguments sont très intéressants et assez convaincants. Cela dit, je dois bien avouer que j'ai trouvé que tout était un peu trop dans l'exagération (autant d'un côté que de l'autre). Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec le fait que les raisons sont nombreuses d'arrêter la viande et, comme tous végé qui se respecte, ça me plairait bien de réussir à convertir quelques carnivores. Cependant, je ne suis pas persuadée que le "forcing" que subit "C" dans ce livre puisse être réellement efficace (Et contrairement à ce que Peter Singer en dit dans sa préface, ce n'est pas le livre que je ferais lire à un carnivore lambda pour le convaincre d'arrêter la viande). Le fait que ce texte soit écrit sous forme de dialogue apporte un côté vivant à la lecture, mais les explications et parallèles toujours plus poussées dans l'exagération ont parfois réussi à me perdre. Bref, ce n'est pas mon essai favoris sur ce sujet, mais il m'aura au moins appris deux-trois choses intéressantes.

[Marlon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un interesante diálogo entre un omnivoro y un vegetariano sobre la ética de comer carne y productos animales, principalmente los provenientes de las granjas industriales. Michael Huemer es un filósofo brillante que con claridad y articualdamente, pone en la voz de V los mejores argumentos éticos para dejar de comer carne. Por otra parte, en el caso de M(personaje omnivoro), Michael busca presentar los argumentos más utilizados en respuesta al vegetarianismo, algunos de los cuáles aparecen comúnmente en el debate académico, no sólo en argumentos de neófitos de redes sociales. El libro deja una larga lista de recursos para profundizar en cada uno de los temas que formaron parte del diálogo de 4 días entre M y V. Aclarar que Michael usa el término vegetariano, pero en realidad la postura que defiende es la de un ostrovegano(dieta basada en plantas y en animales sin cerebro como los mejillones o las ostras), aunque tampoco se opone al consumo de miel.

[Harsha · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wish the 'M' was as intelligent as the 'V'. V came up with great arguments, but the dialogue fell short because M was not as competent with his arguments. All his arguments circled around his intuition which was slightly disappointing. I also don't care much for the subtle usage of words which made it seem like the author was already biased towards vegetarianism.

I hope someone can come up with a similar book but with much more competent arguments on both sides covering different aspects of vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism. After a while, using moral values alone to judge the topic seemed inefficient.

[Ville Sokk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Huemer presents sophisticated arguments in a manner understandable to someone who has not studied moral philosophy. The book is very comprehensive as it adresses a large number of meat-eater positions you might not have heard of. Some questions remain unanswered but the author provides suggestions for further study. I think the book is a great introduction to why non-human animals matter.

You might find this interview with Huemer useful when considering whether to read the book: https://animainternational.org/blog/i...

[Brittany · Rating 2 out of 5]

1.5 stars rounded up. The stars represent the thoroughness of the vegan position and that's it. I guess it's a good sneer if you're a vegan who wants to feel morally superior to supposedly representative arguments made up almost exclusively of bad faith and weak man statements that fail the ideological Turing test.

Sometimes the answer to "so if X is ok, then Y would be ok too?" is yes.

[Joseph]

It was nice to have a bunch of arguments and counterarguments consolidated in a single book. If someone wants to get an overview of arguments for and against vegetarianism/veganism, I would recommend this book. I doubt that I would recommend (or give) this book if someone hasn't expressed interest in exploring the topic, simply due to how poorly most people tend react to being told that they are doing something wrong.

My only quibble is that M (the non-vegetarian in the dialogue) tends to propose very weak arguments. I'd love to see a "steel man" version rather than a straw man version of the anti-vegetarian arguments. Of course V being abnormally articulate and able to cite loads of content off the top of his head is totally unrealistic, as is the calm and reasoned nature of the whole discussion, but I think these are necessary to produce this kind of a Socratic dialogue which doubles as a reference of common arguments.

[dani · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5/5 stars,
lukewarm, white veganism. l’auteur fait très souvent allusion à l’esclavage et à l’holocauste de l’allemagne n*zie pour défendre ses points… some takes felt ableist.
basically a philosophy bro’s opinion on animal ethics and rights. the day one conversation was actually pretty good, as soon as day two started, it went
downhill.
this book shows why intersectionality is sooo needed in sustainability/vegan spaces, so many loopholes and absurd hypothetical questions that did not lead anywhere.

at first thought, i should be biased right? i’m a plant-based person who cares a lot about ethics but this lacked too much intersectionality, it cannot be recommended.

je suis d’accord avec les arguments relatifs aux normes sociales et à la tendance à maintenir le statu quo.

[Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is good, I love the idea of the dialogue. Even thought it is introductory at the same time it presents some basic ethical perspectives which help you research further.

[Nicolas Alejandro · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never made up their minds to be either good or evil." Hannah Arendt, quoted by Huemer

[Laurence · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you like debates, philosophy, and serious open minded discussion on controversial topics, then I really recommend Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism by Michael Huemer. Even if you don't, I still recommend this book because it's so short and fun to read.

A short and fun read investigating arguments for and against eating meat written in the form of a dialogue between two students, a meat eater and a vegan.

The meat eater is someone who eats products from animals which experience pain in the making of those products.
The vegan is someone who doesn't eat products from animals that experience pain in order for the product to be made.

My main thoughts on animal suffering and dietary ethics right now are the following. They don't necessarily reflect what is in the book. This is just me thinking by writing.

1 - keeping animals in cramped conditions (chickens and pigs live in cages or densely populated pens) where they can't move freely and suffer from open wounds (pigs have their tails trimmed and hens have their beaks trimmed) and dirty conditions (living in their excrement) is very painful for these animals
2 - animal food products are a minor benefit to humans because they taste good but aren't necessary to stay healthy
3 - it's wrong to cause enormous suffering to others (animals) in exchange for minor benefits to oneself (good tasting food)
4 - it follows that it's wrong to keep a pig or a hen in a cage so that I can eat pork chops or have eggs
5 - it's also wrong to pay for someone to do wrong things for me
6 - so it follows that it's wrong to pay someone for pork or eggs from animals that suffered immensely over the course of their lifetime

I think the most convincing response to a pain reductionist argument counters statement 3 by saying that eating animal products is a large benefit because it is necessary to reduce human suffering.
The argument goes something like:

1 - animal suffering is bad
2 - human suffering is worse
3 - humans must make animals suffer to avoid suffering themselves (eat animal products in order to be healthy and avoid suffering)
4 - therefore humans should cause bad animal suffering to reduce worse human suffering

This argument for eating animal products admits that animal suffering is bad. If you agree with the argument above and you're eating animal products right now you should be trying to minimise animal suffering while maximising your health.
If I disagreed that a vegan diet was healthy, but also thought animal suffering was bad, then I should avoid doing more bad than I have to, i.e. eat eggs if I think I need them to be healthy, but only eat as much as I need, and try to eat eggs that reduce harm done to hens. And I should support initiatives to improve animal living conditions, and I should also switch to animal suffering free alternatives when they become available. Such as lab grown meat or dairy.
For example if I know someone with hens in their garden that run around and don't have a life of torture and pain, then I should eat those eggs instead of eggs from hens which might have had their beak painfully trimmed without anaesthesia to avoid them pecking other hens, might have lived with painful wound infections, have never been outside, lived in crowded spaces, and experienced fear, stress, and pain for most of their lives.

But I don't need to eat animal products in order to be healthy (footnote 1), so statement 3: humans must make animals suffer to avoid suffering themselves, isn't true for eating animal products.

If humans don't need to eat animal products to avoid suffering, consuming animal products is causing more harm than necessary. And we should be vegan, or pain reductionist, or vegetarian, or ostrovegan, or non-animal-suffering-ian, or non-painian, or non-painist, or whatever we want to call it.

Statement 2: human suffering is worse than animal suffering is also easy to argue over. Why is human suffering worse than animal suffering?

I don't think it's because we're smarter than animals. Intuitively suffering of a smart or stupid person is equally bad. So if intelligence is the factor, then we'd have to draw a cutoff somewhere and it's unclear why that cutoff would be at human level intelligence: what about babies or mentally disabled people who have intelligence levels similar to animals? We wouldn't find it permissible to inflict pain on them because they're stupid, because they can still feel pain. So human intelligence doesn't make our suffering worse than animal suffering.

I suspect human suffering is intuitively bad because human empathy is likely a reproductive advantage in a way animal empathy is not. But I can't think of a reason why human suffering is worse than animal suffering. At the same time I live as though human suffering is worse than animal suffering: I am a non-painst in my diet but I am a painist in other situations.

There's a kind of spectrum of permissible reasons to harm animals. From saving human lives to torturing animals for pleasure (footnote 2).
It's clear to me that I value human suffering more than animal suffering, and I'm willing to inflict more suffering on an animal in exchange for a smaller amount of benefit for me (footnote 2).

My current behavior is in line with reducing animal suffering where it's easy for me to do so with very minor disbenefits to myself. I don't need to eat factory farmed animal products that create enormous suffering for animals in order to feel good, and veganism is affordable for me (footnote 3). But I do need to take hair loss pills and have healthy children in order to feel good. I behave like a pain-ist who makes animals suffer to avoid greater than minor suffering myself. I don't see myself becoming completely non-painist until similarly priced pain-free dutasteride pills are available to me.
Morally and rationally speaking, I feel the argument for non-painism is stronger than the argument for painism. I think animals have a right to live pain-free.

What about the right to life and the right to freedom?
My argument for animal right to life and freedom is similar to my first non-painist argument, and goes something like this:

1 - being impeded from doing something you really want to do or forced to do something you really don't want to do is painful
2 - animals want to survive, have sex, and act freely, and animals don't want to be forcibly impregnated or neutered
3 - it's wrong to cause pain to others for minor benefits to yourself
4 - it follows that stopping animals from living, reproducing, and acting freely, or forcibly impregnating or neutering animals is wrong
5 - it's also wrong to pay for someone to do wrong things for me
6 - so it follows that it's wrong to pay someone for meat or milk from animals that were killed, imprisoned, or forcibly impregnated, and it's wrong to pay someone to neuter your pet

Is it permissible to keep happy hens in a garden enclosure if they aren't free to roam outside of the enclosure, have sex, and do what they want?
No, because being impeded from doing something you really want to do or forced to do something you really don't want to do is painful. (footnote 4)
Maybe pet animals or livestock experience more suffering outside of a symbiotic relationship with humans, in which case keeping animals as pets reduces their suffering. Or maybe pets are free to do more things they want to do, like play, when they are fed and protected. (footnote 5)

If animal pain is as bad as human pain, we should take precautions to avoid birds flying into plane engines and wind turbines, relocate moles when building roads and buildings, free animals, like egg-laying hens and pet dogs, from relationships that limit their freedom for our benefit, and aim to treat animals like super stupid human beings who can't control their impulses: defend their right to live pain-free and act freely within the law.

Animals are just different species from us, but they have a conscious experience too.
I want to leave you with a thought exercise. "How should smarter aliens capable of factory farming humans treat us?"
If you think it would be wrong for aliens to treat us like factory farmed chickens, cows and pigs, or happy chickens in someone's back garden, then shouldn't you stop treating cows, pigs, and chickens the same way, by no longer eating animal products?
I wouldn't find it fair if aliens decided they enjoyed human milk and started factory farming humans by forcibly impregnating women every year, keeping them in crowded indoor prisons, separating them from their children at birth, killing newborn males because unprofitable, and killing the women once their milk yields are no longer profitable.


footnotes:

1 - Limiting caloric intake, getting essential micronutrients, and getting enough of each macronutrient are what determine whether or not a diet is healthy. And I can do all of these without eating animal products. If I'm physically active, eat an amount of calories that keeps me lean, balance fats, carbs, and proteins, and supplement essential nutrients I don't get from plant based foods, I'll be healthy. Probably more than most humans.
If I want to get enough protein to put on muscle and feel satiated, I can use amino acid complete vegan protein powder.
My reading on the healthy diet topic gave me the impression that a balanced mediterranean diet which includes fish, meat, and animal products is the most healthy, and it differs from other diets by having balanced macronutrients, and having higher amounts of monounsaturated and omega 3 polyunsaturated fats from olive oil and fish. So I don't think the vegan diet is the healthiest diet, but I do think it's healthy and can be tuned to be similar to a mediterranean diet, by using olive oil, taking omega 3 supplements, and eating a macronutrient profile similar to the mediterranean diet.

2 - Following are situations where I find harming animals to reduce human inconvenience permissible:
a) What if you want to harm animals to develop medicines that reduce human suffering?
I'm probably okay with harming animals to cure diseases or develop pain relief medication as long as unnecessary animal harm is avoided where easy to do so.
b) What if you want to eat an animal in order to avoid starvation or to save a human life?
I'm not at risk of starvation. If I was I would eat an animal. If I could choose to save a human by killing an animal, I would.
c) What if you want to kill animals in order to build a road or a house? I'm okay with causing harm to animals that live where I want to build a road or a building for human benefit, although I would try not to kill them, granted the cost of not inflicting harm on the animals wasn't so high that construction became much more expensive. I suspect around 2% of the construction value, e.g. if I had $100,000 to build a home, I would be okay with spending up to $2,000 to move the animals that live where the home will be built. If I actually was spending $100,000 to build a home I reckon I would probably change my mind, because the trade-off would be clearer: I could buy a nice new bicycle or force relocate some hedgehogs for $2000, and so maybe I would value animal life even less, maybe less than $100 each, similar to how I'm okay spending up to about $20 a week today to avoid making animals suffer immensely, although the harm being done to them is much greater (factory farming does more harm than relocation).
d) What if you want to eat animal products because you are pregnant and you think it's healthier for your baby?
I'm not pregnant. If I or my partner was, and it was healthier for our child, I would probably eat animals.
e) What if you want to eat some animal products in order to get essential nutrients which are hard to come by on a vegan diet?
I can supplement the essential nutrients that are hard to come by on a vegan diet. I feel pretty good on my vegan diet so I don't feel the need to eat animal products. If I felt sick on a vegan diet or it was incredibly hard to follow, I probably wouldn't be vegan.
f) What if you want to eat animal products because it's more affordable to follow a healthy omnivorous diet than it is to follow a healthy vegan diet?
I spend $15.5 more a week to be vegan (footnote 2). I can afford this while affording other things I enjoy. If I was poorer and money was more valuable to me, I would be willing to spend less on vegan supplements and food options.
g) What if you want to follow an omnivorous diet because you find that you eat too much sugar on a vegan diet and it's harming your teeth?
I clean and floss my teeth every day, avoid lots of refined sugar, and am okay with a slightly less optimum diet for my teeth. If a vegan diet gave me tooth decay and bad oral health after a few years I wouldn't be vegan.
h) What if you want to take dutasteride 5-alpha-reducatase inhibitor pills which contain gelatin sourced from animals to stop your hair falling out?
I currently am okay with some animal suffering in order to get gelatin used in dutasteride pills that stop my hair falling out. I value being attractive more than doing some harm to animals. If an effective vegan alternative comes out at a similar price, I would buy it instead.
i) What if you want to follow an omnivorous diet because it's easier and less time consuming than following a healthy vegan diet?
I value my time, and if being vegan took up many hours of my week, I probably wouldn't be vegan, but it doesn't. It took me a few hours to make a new meal plan and figure out what supplements I need, and I can buy vegan food at my local supermarket. If I didn't have as much time to research a vegan diet, I probably wouldn't be vegan.
j) What if I want to farm animal products because I live in a malnourished society and I can relieve some of this suffering by feeding people animal products?
Consumption of animals is probably okay with me if it's to relieve human suffering, granted that animal pain is treated as bad, and therefore reduced where it's easy to do so.

3 - I spend $10 more on my weekly shop and $6.5 per week on daily supplements.
I take daily supplements on my vegan diet to ensure I get enough of but not too much of (careful of that) the essential nutrients I need to live healthily (not starve and feel good):
vitamin B12 (1000mcg), calcium + magnesium (400mg + 200mg), selenium (100mcg from 20mg L-Selenomethionine), iodine (150mcg), zinc (10mg), vitamin D3 (2000IU) + K2 (200mcg), omega-3 (~1.6g Omega-3 ALA from 1 Tbsp flax & chia seeds, 420mg Omega-3 DHA + 140mg Omega-3 EPA algae oil pills), choline (350mg), creatine (5g), essential amino acids complete plant protein powder (25g protein).
Bivalves provide me with some B12, heme iron, and omega-3s, and most likely don't feel pain because they don’t have a brain so they likely don’t have a consciousness, i.e. a subjective experience of their sensory inputs or other things our brains make us aware of. But I don’t eat them enough to rely on them.

4 - Being impeded from doing something you really want to do or forced to do something you don't want to do is painful, so the following examples of animal treatment become questionable.
Would you artificially inseminate your pet dog and then murder its children so you can steal its milk?
Is it permissible to forcibly impregnate, i.e. artificially inseminate or rape, cows for milk or meat?
Is it permissible to separate newly born cows from their mothers to maximise milk yields?
Is it permissible to euthanise newly born cows or chickens?
Is it permissible to consume animal products if you don't harm them while they're alive and you kill them painlessly?
Is it permissible to sterilise pets to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or castrate pets to modify their behaviour?

5 - You would have to compare the harm of limiting your pets freedom (e.g. can't roam or reproduce freely) with the benefits to them and yourself (e.g. neutering your pet cat so that it doesn't roam, starve, get sick, get attacked, mark territory with its urine, get pregnant, or get genital cancer). How much freedom is it permissible to take away from an animal if you think it's in the animal's best interest not to have that freedom, and would you be okay with that freedom being taken away from you in exchange for those benefits? I suspect I would sacrifice some freedom of movement for improved safety, food, and health. However I wouldn't sacrifice my genitals and sex hormones to reduce my chances of genital cancer. And I wouldn't sacrifice my child's life or milk to have someone keep my safe and well fed.

[Seth Green · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think that you already know that you shouldn't eat meat. And that you shouldn't subsidize factory farming at all, including buying cheese and eggs from industrial farms. (Look at her -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestati... . You already know this.)

But Huemer provides the talking points, and did the research. The dialogue format also allows for a broad overview of the relevant arguments, none in huge depth, but well-annotated (if you want more).

Put differently: I was vegetarian when I started this and now I'm ostrovegan, like Huemer. So I guess it worked.

Today, animal suffering is more salient to me. And it's everywhere. It is hard to take.

[Rif A. Saurous · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short book is a series of fictional dialogues between a meat eater and a (nearly) vegan. The book lays out the arguments for (at the very least) abstaining from factory farmed animal products clearly, hitting all the major points. I especially appreciated the annotated bibliography, which seemed to be an excellent starting point for folks wishing to explore the philosophical or scientific aspects more deeply. Easy clear five stars.

[Missdoster · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t think you could find a book that is both as comprehensive and engaging on the topic of ethical vegetarianism than this one. Organized as a set of conversations between two friends, it is easily accessible for non academics and avoids being stuffy without compromising on the depth of the content. Highly recommend for anyone interested in ethics and animals.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing. If you're thinking about the morality of meat, start here.

[Elwira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ostatnio wstrząsnęła mną informacja, że podczas pożarów w Australii zginęło około miliarda zwierząt. Sporo, prawda?
A potem przeczytałam to:
"Ludzie zabijają na całym świecie około siedemdziesięciu czterech miliardów zwierząt rocznie. I mówimy tu tylko o zwierzętach lądowych. Liczba zwierząt morskich jest o wiele większa".
Nigdy się nad tym nawet nie zastanawiałam.
Od jakiegoś czasu próbuję ograniczyć spożycie mięsa w moim domu (choć i tak jemy go mało), ale wciąż mam poczucie, że trzeba robić więcej, działać bardziej. Okazało się, że nawet takie ograniczanie mięsa ma już swoją nazwę - fleksitarianizm.
Kupiłam więc tę małą żółtą książeczkę, żeby jeszcze bardziej się zmotywować do ograniczenia mięsa i produktów odzwięrzęcych (choć ogólnie jem mało, bo nie uważam, żeby moim głównym sensem istnienia było jedzenie, zwłaszcza jeśli się patrzy w ogólnej perspektywie na żywność - nawet roślinną - i wszelkie konsekwencje powstawania tejże).
Z początku pomyślałam, że ta książka to takie filozoficzne bajanie i zaczęłam o niej rozmawiać z mężem, który zawsze mówi, że dla niego przejście na wegetarianizm nie byłoby problemem, po czym nagle się okazało, że gdy mówię mu o tym, jak pozyskuje się mleko od krów, rzuca mi argumentami zwolenników jedzenia mięsa żywcem wziętymi z tej książki! Chwilę trwałam w szoku, bo kompletnie się tego nie spodziewałam, ale otrząsnęłam się i odpowiedziałam mu również argumentami z tej książki, które obalały jego. W ogóle nie sądziłam, że tak szybko mi się ta książka przyda, ale część argumentów jest po prostu nie do podważenia, czy nam się to podoba, czy nie.
To jedna z tych książek, które uwierają. Mówi się, że niewiedza jest błogosławieństwem, ale ja niestety lubię wiedzieć, jak nasz świat wygląda.
"Porozmawiajmy o jedzeniu zwierząt" to książka składająca się z czterech dialogów weganina i mięsożercy, którzy dyskutują o świadomości zwierząt, o ich poziomie inteligencji i o bólu i cierpieniu, którego doświadczają na fermach przemysłowych. Momentami jest napastliwa, ale jest to zabieg celowy. Żałuję tylko, że pozycja ta jest tak krótka i nie wyczerpuje tematu (zabrakło mi kilku banalnych wręcz argumentów). Niemniej jednak jest warta polecenia, odsyła też do kolejnych prac i książek na temat jedzenia zwierząt, a w posłowiu znajdujemy informacje o tym, gdzie szukać smacznych i zbilansowanych przepisów na dania wege.
Myślę, że jest to pozycja obowiązkowa dla każdego, kto chce choć trochę zmienić świat na lepsze.
I jeszcze jeden cytat:
"Przede wszystkim w przypadku większości naszych złych zachowań w przeszłości - niewolnictwa, kolonializmu, zniewolenia kobiet - ich ofiary dysponowały możliwością zabrania głosu i skorzystały z niej. W przypadku jedzenia zwierząt jego ofiary nie są i nie będą w stanie nigdy wypowiedzieć się we własnym imieniu. Nie ma nikogo poza nami, kto mógłby się wypowiedzieć przeciwko temu, co my sami robimy. I dlatego musimy to robić. W przeciwnym wypadku nigdy tego procederu nie powstrzymamy".

[Jean-françois Virey · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The worst thing I have ever done in my life is that I ate meat and other animal products for many years." - Michael Huemer

The philosophical dialogue is one of today's most sadly neglected formats for presenting ideas. I am glad that it has not totally fallen out of fashion and that some philosophers (like Peter Kreeft, Matthew Silliman or Kenneth Sayre) are still using it and that Michael Huemer has decided to join them. His is a brilliant, dense little book, which show how much information and sense the format can convey.

Although written in colloquial, everyday English rather than academic prose, it is never superficial or vague. It contains probably as many references as pages, and ends with a very helpful annotated bibliography which can serve as a launchpad for anyone wanting to delve further into any of the issues raised (too few authors provide such bibliographies; Nancey Murphy's excellent "Philosophy of the Christian Religion" is another exception.)

The only things I think could be added to this extremely useful book are:
- a discussion of the egregious evils of milk and egg production, which most people naively assume are morally neutral or at least much less wrong than meat production (when they are in fact worse); though there are mentions of vegan cheese and the book focuses on factory farming, which is where most milk and eggs come from, a casual reader (or one not too ready to admit the evil of his or her lifestyle) might come off with the idea that eschewing meat is laudable enough, and veganism is for extremists (Huemer himself is an ostrovegan);
- a discussion of the ethics of owning and killing animals; Huemer focuses mostly on living conditions on industrial farms, and people are much too prompt to believe that you can be an "ethical carnivore" if you consume "humanely" slaughtered animals. It is notoriously difficult for utilitarians to argue for the wrongness of killing people or animals when they are just replaced by new individuals (keeping the sum of happiness constant), but I wish he had tried.

I will definitely use this book with my students and hopefully have them memorise and perform extracts in class. Perhaps the best recommendation comes from Peter Singer himself, in the preface: "In the future, when people ask me why I don’t eat meat, I will tell them to read this book."

[Maxime Berthiaume · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book.

It could have been longer in my view and could have delved deeper into different objections, M could have given a better fight to V. But I think the position of M being hard to defend is just representative of the moral reality.

The book made a case against eating products from factory farms, not to all the consumptions of animal products.
V actually says that he isn't sure if eating meat from a farm that gave a painless life and death to animals is wrong (it's a complicated moral question which requires us to know if animals have some sort of right to life). He chose to restrain from eating meat from farms that make sure the animals don't suffer for cautionary reasons, since if it happens to be wrong it would be very very wrong (since there are so many killed animals for meat consumption). If the book was about the ethics of eating meat in general then I would be more critical against Huemer and say that M was horrible at arguing, but since the aim of the book is factory farming (which represents 99% of the meat consumption in the US), I just think there are no good defense of it and M did a pretty good job and I wouldn't have done better.

[Marcus · Rating 3 out of 5]

An accessible, breakneck review of the arguments against eating animal products. I liked the speed and the focus on addressing counterarguments. Peter Singer wrote in the foreword that this is what he suggests to those who raise questions about his not eating animal products, and I can see why.

That said, as much as I appreciated Huemer's experimentation with the dialogue format, it often came off as clunky. I also thought the format and breadth largely failed provoke the type of personal contemplation that I think is important in these issues, though perhaps that's a reflection on me rather than Huemer.

[Ray · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish there were more philosophy books like this. It covers a wide range of areas though the literary device of dialogue, while still being rigorous with solid argumentation and extensive footnotes.

The dialogue is somewhat idealized, as M often cedes ground faster than a real person would, but that is necessary to advance the conversation. It is realistic in that the participants return to previous areas of discussion, and there are diversions, accusations of hypocrisy, etc.

This book is accessible and short, it can easily be finished in one sitting. Get this book and gift it or loan it to your friends. It may be a moral imperative for you to do so.

[Matt Berkowitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Huemer has written an excellent short book that is a fictional conversation between a meat-eater and vegan. Throughout four conversations, the two explore most of the major objections meat-eaters tend to give for continuing to eat meat. Huemer does a laudable job at steel-manning the best versions of such arguments, giving him the opportunity to showcase the best vegan counter-arguments. They discuss whether the life of an animal is equal to that of a human (and whether it matters), expected value, status quo bias and related peer pressure, whether intelligence in animals is relevant to our obligations to avoid causing suffering, and plenty more. Fantastic little piece.

[Christina Vasilopoulou · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ένα βιβλίο πραγματικά χρήσιμο σε όσους θέλουν να ακονίσουν τα επιχειρήματά τους υπέρ της ηθικής χορτοφαγίας αλλά και σε όσους ακόμα έχουν αμφιβολίες.

Σε έναν κόσμο που κατακλύζεται από τις νέες καταναλωτικές τάσεις διατροφής, ο Χούμερ μας υπενθυμίζει, με έναν δομημένο και λεπτομερή τρόπο, ότι η φυτοφαγία αποτελεί μια ηθική επιλογή άρνησης της αναίτιας εκμετάλλευσης που υφίστανται τα μη ανθρώπινα ζώα.

[sam mesterharm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to read this for class, i think it was insightful but the characters frustrated me. M was incredibly defensive yet had no back bone and V was so extreme with their examples. I am sure for non-vegetarians this would be an interesting book to read and gain insights on why they should be vegetarian, but as one, it felt redundant, and again- extreme. Granted, it isnt supposed to be a story book with a complex plot, so given its just an overview of the ethics, its not too bad.

[Parthavi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy to read, insightful, effective, and intensive! The hypothetical yet realistic dialogues between a meat-eater and vegan to express common arguments and show that ethical vegetarianism is the morally correct solution. I think this is a short book that should be read by everyone, so we can all better reflect on our actions.