Theoria

Brian Leiter has posted a response to discussion of his “poll,” which can be read here. Suffice to say, his response is unsurprising. His argument against being vegan is not an argument against being vegan at all. For instance, he takes up Singer’s utilitarianism which does not lead to vegan position — Singer himself argues that it is acceptable to eat, for instance, organic free-range eggs (e.g., page 177 of the 2002 Ecco edition of Animal Liberation). No vegan would agree with this. Indeed, Singer consistently defends a vegetarian diet buttressed by a naive belief in the political efficacy of animal welfare. (This puts him in the same camp as HSUS or PETA who happily promote “ethical carnivorism” or “happy meat”!) Leiter has clearly not spent much time considering the issue or reading the relevant literature. All of his “objections” have been discussed at length for over thirty years. Our eminent philosopher might consider Julian Franklin’s Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy (which takes up Kant directly finding in favour of the moral status of animals), Gary Francione’s Introduction to Animal Rights (which takes up the capitalism question), or Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (which takes up the synchronic question), all of which take a deontological approach. Alternatively, it might be easier to attack someone who does not maintain that veganism is a moral requirement and who maintains that animals — and humans — do not possess rights! (And, do note that Leiter does not even make a hint at Levinasian or feminist approachs to the question.)

Further discussion at A Thinking Reed and Dorf on Law.