Simply, I would say this in response: animals in the wild eat other animals in order to survive. Many humans, on the other hand, eat animals for reasons other than survival, such as taste and pleasure. It is okay for wild animals to eat other animals because they must do so to live. On the contrary, many human beings can live healthy lives without eating animals. There lies the difference.

Note: Often times, this argument is followed by something like "So would you eat animals or other humans in order to survive?" The short answer is, of course, people do many things they wouldn't do under normal circumstances to survive. Not only would many people--including vegans--eat an animal if they were put in a situation where they had to survive, but a lot of people would also eat another human being if their survival depended on it.

Adam Kochanowicz of Vegan.FM argues the following:

Some claim it’s wrong to eat other animals yet other animals do exactly that in the wild. Is it really so wrong for us to kill animals for food when animals rely on this to survive in nature? After all, we are animals too.

When we deconstruct this question, there are several possible underlying arguments which are troublesome. Whatever the main argument is, there is an apparent appeal to nature fallacy here.

The appeal to nature fallacy:

N is natural.

Therefore, N is good or right.

U is unnatural.

Therefore, U is bad or wrong.

Indeed, animals kill and eat each other in the wild. However, they also do not experiment on other animals for medical research. This lack of experimentation has been happening for millions of years in the wild and surely the survival of wild animals has depended on this as harmful genes and weak individuals have been naturally selected out of populations. Yet most opponents of veganism would not object to medical animal experimentation, and indeed they would object to the objection of medical research on animals.

Indeed, species of dogs and cats are also subject to being hunted and eaten in the wild. Yet should we be silent about harming dogs and cats? Would the underlying logic of this question permit me to beat a golden retriever to death so I could eat her for dinner?

The person asking the question is also bound to explain why “wild animals” or “nature” are being used as sources of morality. Would we discuss moral issues of rape or murder within our own species based on the behavior of wild lions, boars, or birds? For some reason, the natural behavior of wild animals does not justify these actions when it comes to harming other humans. So why are we beginning with the premise that behaviors that exist in nature are morally justified for humans?

Furthermore, what does what we do to other animals have to do with “nature” or “the wild”? The animals we eat and are exploited as slaves, they are genetically modified* to exist as food animals for us. They are kept in controlled, closed areas free-range or otherwise, and are led into motor vehicles to be taken to buildings where they are killed by machines. Meanwhile, animal products are killing us and contribute to ischaemic heart disease–the number one natural killer of human beings. We do not need animal products to survive and, in the developed world, we can easily live healthfully on a vegan diet.

This question serves as an example of how the public will appeal to nature when it serves their interests (consuming animals for food, etc.) yet will appeal to their superiority over nature when it serves that very same interest (consuming animals for research, etc.) If we wish to acknowledge our natural, yet superior intellects, we can acknowledge our ability to feel empathy and make intelligent moral choices about how our decisions affect others.

*By the way, your “natural” animal product may not be genetically modified in a lab (although it probably is), but they are domesticated regardless. Their genetic makeup has been artificially selected over many years to be food animals for human beings.

There are two ways this could be argued:

1. Jesus did NOT eat fish and was a vegetarian, or
2. Jesus DID eat fish but it does not matter.
   

Let's address the second one before diving into religious sources.

Even if Jesus was NOT a vegetarian, what a person ate a few thousand years ago should not influence what someone should eat today, just as what a person wore a few thousand years ago should not influence what someone should wear today. Will you only wear white linen and simple garb because that is what Jesus may have worn? Of course not. We are thousands of years more advanced than in the time of Jesus and we have many other options for how to live an ethical life.

Now, what do religious sources say? Could Jesus have been a vegetarian? Or a vegan?

On The Nazarene Way website,

Now this is a touchy subject. Across the globe, there is a small handful of vegetarian Christians who assert that Jesus was a vegetarian. The bible, and other sources, seems to support this belief. Vegetarianism is not without precedent in the Christian, or even Catholic faiths: Many early church fathers were vegetarian, including St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Francis of Assisi.

Many Biblical scholars believe Jesus was a member of the Nazarene Essenes, a Jewish religious sect that followed a vegetarian diet and rejected animal sacrifices. This is possible when one looks at the Shroud of Turin, a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man, whom many believe to be Jesus. If Jesus was indeed a member of the Nazarene Essenes, he would also have taken the vow of a Nazarene, thus not cut his hair (Numbers 6:5). In the imprint found in the shroud of turin, there is a man with west-asian features (Nazareth is in west Asia), who has long hair, further supporting the claim Jesus was a member of the Nazarene Essenes.

Of course, there is no definite proof the Shroud of Turin is legitimate, so in order to prove Jesus was a Nazarene Essene, or a vegetarian, we need to look into the bible...

And so they look into the Bible. According to them, there is biblical support for Jesus following a vegetarian diet. (See their page here)

In the 14th chapter of Matthew (verses 13-21) Jesus takes his boat to a remote island. Thousands follow him there. Jesus tells his disciples to feed these people, but the tell him that they only have five loaves of bread and two fish (verse 17). Jesus gave thanks for the food, and it multiplied into enough to feed five thousand people. Now the question is, if Jesus was a vegetarian, why was he giving fish to his followers?

It should be noted that some scholars contend that the Greek word for "fish weed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, and fishweed remains a popular food among Palestinian peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the story (Matthew 14:13) it says Jesus got to this place by boat. These people were right by the sea. If they were out of fish, why not just go on a quick fishing expedition? Surely with 5,000 men present it would not be that hard to go fishing. With this in mind, it further supports the thought that fishweed was being used, not actual fish. [...]

Finally, there is the story of after the resurrection, in Luke 24:42-43, where Jesus eats some fish. This is an interesting story. Some scholars however, have stated that in this verse, the Greek word for fish is "ixous", which happens to be an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today.

There are at least two main reasons why this argument is completely ridiculous.

1) Plants do not feel pain. To feel pain, you must have some sort of nervous system or pain receptors--plants have neither.

2) A vegan is responsible for the "death" of less plants than a non-vegan. Animals raised for food must consume large amounts of plants, so anyone eating products of those animals are also responsible for all of the plants it took to raise that animal. Vegans consume less plants by just eating the plants directly, rather than funneling ten times the amount of plants through an animal.

Adam Kochanowicz of Vegan.FM argues the following:

"How can vegans reconcile with the fact they must kill plants if they are against killing? Are they any better than an omnivore, who has animals killed for food and clothing, if a vegan kills plants instead? Do vegans not understand that 'life feeds on life?'

To address this question, one must first understand that, while an abolitionist vegan is strictly non-violent, this does not mean they must abstain from killing–to the extent that it may be so generally defined. Someone who calls themselves non-violent should not hesitate to kill a fatal bacteria, the harmless bacteria on her skin which perishes from everyday human activity, or even plants.

In fact, the abolitionist approach is not intrinsically an approach 'against killing,' but against the property status of sentient beings. Sentience is the state of being aware--not to be confused with sapience, the state of having good judgment and rationality. Sentience is actually a very minimal characteristic for a healthy animal possessing a brain. Cows, sheep, pigs, and any of the other common animals eaten in the western world possess this cognitive characteristic.

While there are many books attesting to the 'intelligence' of plants including some articles in major newspapers, these largely refer to complex chemical reactions and defense mechanisms. These are interesting, but they are also automated processes devoid of intentionality. Plants do not have a peripheral (nerves running through the body) or central nervous system (the brain). They simply do not possess the fundamental organs needed to process awareness. Regardless of whatever microscopic processes they possess, they do not have the capacity to feel, reason, or share the most minimal sense of an experience.

Even if we were to find that, by some miracle, plants indeed are sentient creatures and are fully aware of the world around them, the number of lives killed for animal products exceeds that for vegan food. This is because animal life ultimately begins with plant life as well. Because we breed animals into existence to be our slaves, our food, our clothing, and our entertainment, we must cycle plants through them their entire just to produce their weight in animal product--once."

This is false. Veganism is perfectly healthy if you do it right. Meat and dairy products are not a necessary part of the human diet. In fact, any vitamin or nutrients found in meat or dairy foods can be found in many other plant-based foods.

The American Dietetic Association, the largest organization of health and nutrition professionals in the world, state that veganism can be perfectly healthy. In July of 2009, the ADA published the following:

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. The variability of dietary practices among vegetarians makes individual assessment of dietary adequacy essential. In addition to assessing dietary adequacy, food and nutrition professionals can also play key roles in educating vegetarians about sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and dietary modifications to meet their needs." [1]

SOURCES

[1] For a more in depth analysis, you can read the entire excerpt in the ADA's publication (Volume 109, Issue 7, Pages 1266-1282) or listen to the 23 minute audiocast by following the links below to the abstract paragraph at http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357

Most often, people are referring to Genesis 4:3-5 when this argument is made. A few translations of Genesis chapter 4, verses 3-5 are as follows:

"Later, Cain brought a gift to God. He brought some food from the ground. Abel brought the best-parts of his best sheep. The Lord accepted Abel and his gift. But God did not accept Cain and his gift." (International Children's Bible)

^"3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. ⁴ And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, ⁵ but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." (New International Version)

"(3) And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. (4) And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: (5) But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." (King James Version)

Does this mean that God favors animal sacrifices over offerings of plants? Fr. Ted, an orthodox priest, states the following on the two sacrifices on his blog:

"Patristic writers from the earliest days also puzzled over why Cain’s offering was not acceptable to God. Scripture is silent on this point. Among the explanations put forth by the Fathers of the Church: Cain didn’t offer God the first fruits of his garden – he had already satiated his own appetite and only then turned to offer thanks to God; Cain didn’t offer the best of his fruits but only that which he couldn’t use himself; Cain’s intentions were wrong; Cain was lackadaisical in making the offering; Cain made the offer grudgingly; Cain was indifferent to God and offered only out of a sense of obligation but not joy or thanksgiving. Genesis offers no moral to the story, rather reporting the story with objective indifference.

Abel offers an animal sacrifice, which at least so far in the text, has not been commanded by God. But God has regard for the shedding of the sheep’s blood. Somehow this seems incongruous with the God of Paradise, who gave the humans only plants and fruit to eat, not other animals. Why has blood sacrifice become pleasing to God? Humans still are not permitted to eat flesh/meat in Genesis, nor has any killing of animals been authorized by God. [...] Cain’s offering was not well thought out, not the first fruits or the best fruits of Cain’s garden, but merely whatever he had gathered up or gleaned – this is why God won’t accept it as it is an offering of carelessness and indifference. “Cursed is he who does the work of the LORD with slackness” (Jeremiah 48:10)." (Source)

Basically, Cain wasn't punished (and Abel, rewarded) because of what he offered, but because of the quality of his offering. Abel offered his best animal while Cain offered just any old plants. This was the issue at hand, not because of the material of the offering.

It is true that there were animal sacrifices in the Bible, but when is the last time any modern day Christians decided to ritually slaughter a lamb as a sacrifice to God?

The Christian Vegetarian Association states that:

"The Bible relates that God accepted animal sacrifices. However, several later prophets objected to sacrifice, emphasizing that God prefers righteousness. Animal sacrifices are not required or even desired now, for at least two reasons. First, Paul encouraged self-sacrifice, writing, “[P]resent your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). Second, traditional interpretations of Jesus’ death affirm that, because of him, animal sacrifice is no longer necessary. Christians, being new creations in Christ, may model Christ by choosing a loving relationship with all Creation. Indeed, Jesus twice quoted Hosea (6:6), saying, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13, 12:7)."

According to the CVA and the Bible, animal sacrifices are outdated, completely unnecessary, and should be no excuse for continuing to exploit animals today. For a more detailed account on Jesus and animal sacrifices, see this: Christ's Assault on Blood Sacrifice

If a flood were to cover the entire Earth, it is unlikely that any plants would survive to live off of. Therefore, God's permission to eat animals after the flood was because of a need to survive, not a shift in his original, ideal plan for the human diet.

The Christian Vegetarian Association states:

"Virtually all plants were destroyed by the Flood. Alternatively, God may have allowed Noah limited freedom to express human violence, since unrestrained violence was responsible for the Flood itself (Gen. 6:11–13). Importantly, this passage neither commands meat eating nor indicates that the practice is God’s ideal. Indeed, eating meat came with a curse—animals would no longer be humanity’s friends: “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast…” (Gen. 9:2). While eating meat was not prohibited, it represented a complete break from God’s ideal of animals and humans living peacefully together, as depicted in Eden and by the prophets."

Today, we have many plant foods available to eat. Unlike Noah after the flood, we do not need to consume animals or animal products in order to survive. We must understand the major difference in doing something for survival and doing something out of choice. Eating and using animals, for the majority of humans, is out of choice and is unnecessary.

The first place in the Bible where anything is mentioned about food is in the book of Genesis when God instruct Adam and Eve on what to eat. The book of Genesis (chapter 1, verse 29) states:

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." (King James Version, bible.cc)

In the beginning, according to the bible, God's original plan was for humans to consume only plants. It was only until after the fall--when sin came into the picture--did humans begin to eat and use animals. If God had "put animals on the earth" for humans to eat and use, it would only make sense that He would have made it that way from the beginning.

Clarke, from the website bible.cc, stated:

"...It seems from this, says an eminent philosopher, that man was originally intended to live upon vegetables only; and as no change was made In the structure of men's bodies after the flood, it is not probable that any change was made in the articles of their food [...]. Before sin entered into the world, there could be, at least, no violent deaths, if any death at all."

The Christian Vegetarian Association is an organization whose board members include numerous doctors, professors, philosophers, theologians, and pastors (see a list of the members of the CVA Board here and also a list of members on the advisory board here).

They agree with the above position, stating

"God [...] prescribed a vegetarian diet (1:29–30) in a world God found “very good” (1:31). Created in God’s image of love (1 John 4:8), we are called to be care-takers of God’s Creation, not tyrants over God’s creatures." (Source)

Abolitionists, those who believe in animal rights, believe that animals should not be property like any old lamp or chair or television. The institution of pet ownership perpetuates exactly that--that animals are just things that can be owned like a lamp or a chair or a television. Abolitionist are against this idea, believing that animals are individuals with wants, needs, emotions, and personalities and anyone who lives with a cat or a dog knows these things to be true.

However, humans long ago domesticated animals for pets and abolitionists believe that we have an obligation to care for the animals already in existence by giving them loving homes that provide for their needs as individuals, though abolitionists believe that we should stop breeding more animals into existence just so they can continue to be owned as "pets". Abolitionists encourage people to rescue and adopt animals from shelters and to not support places like puppy mills, pet stores, and other breeders. Ideally, the rescues would be spayed and neutered and, as a long term goal, humans would get to a point where "pets" would no longer be bred and, after there are no more "pets" in existence, humans would obviously no longer own them.

At first, this idea may shock people. After all, they love living with their animal companion, whether they are cats or dogs or rabbits or hamsters. But its human's fault for domesticating them in the first place and its human's obligation to make sure that no more animals are reduced to being property, to being "things".

Gary Francione says the following regarding pets:

Pets are our property. Dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits, and other animals are mass produced like bolts in a factory or, in the case of birds and exotic animals, are captured in the wild and transported long distances, during which journey many of them die. Pets are marketed in exactly the same way as other commodities. Although some of us may treat our companion animals well, more of us treat them poorly. In America, most dogs spend less than two years in a home before they are dumped at a pound or otherwise transferred to a new owner; more than 70 percent of people who adopt animals give them away, take them to shelters, or abandon them. We are all aware of horror stories about neighborhood dogs on short chains who spend most of their lives alone. Our cities are full of stray cats and dogs who live miserable lives and starve or freeze, succumb to disease, or are tormented by humans. Some people who claim to love their companion animals mutilate them senselessly by having their ears cropped, their tails docked, or their claws ripped out so that they will not scratch the furniture.

You may treat your animal companion as a member of your family and effectively accord her or him inherent value or the basic right not to be treated as your resource. But your treatment of your animal really means that you regard your animal property as having higher than market value; should you change your mind and administer daily and severe beatings to your dog for disciplinary purposes, or not feed your cat so that she will be more motivated to catch the mice in the basement of your store, or kill your animal because you no longer want the financial expense, your decision will be protected by the law. You are free to value your property as you see fit. You may decide to polish your car often or you may let the finish erode. The choice is yours. As long as you provide the minimal maintenance for your car so that it can pass inspection, any other decision you make with respect to the vehicle, including your decision to give it to a scrap dealer, is your business. As long as you provide minimal food, water, and shelter to your pet, any other decision you make, apart from torturing the animal for no purpose whatsoever, is your business, including your decision to dump your pet at the local shelter (where many animals are either killed or sold into research, or have your pet killed by a willing veterinarian.

Many years ago, I adopted a hamster from a law school classmate. The hamster became ill one night, and I called an emergency veterinary service. The veterinarian said that the minimum amount for an emergency visit was $50 and asked me why I would want to spend that amount when I could get a “new” hamster from any pet shop for about $3. I took the hamster to the veterinarian anyway, but that event was one of the first times my consciousness was raised about the status of animals as economic commodities.

As someone who lives with seven rescued canine companions whom I love dearly, I do not treat this matter lightly. Although I regard my companions as family members, they are still my property and I could decide tomorrow to have them all killed. As much as I enjoy living with dogs, were there only two dogs remaining in the world, I would not be in favor of breeding them so that we could have more “pets” and thus perpetuate their property status. Indeed, anyone who truly cares about dogs should visit a “puppy mill”–a place where dogs are bred in the hundreds or thousands and are treated as nothing more than commodities. Female dogs are bred repeatedly until they are “spent” and are either killed or sold into research. We should, of course, care for all those domestic animals that are presently alive, but we should not continue to bring more animals into existence so that we may own them as pets.

Vegetarianism is a strictly dietary term. Vegetarians do not consume any animal flesh or their derivatives, including broths and gelatin. People go vegetarian for numerous reasons, such as health, environmental concerns, spirituality, etc. Many years ago, vegetarianism meant a strictly plant-based diet, but has come to include dairy and eggs over time.

Common misuse: Some people claim to be vegetarian but "still eat fish." One who does not consume any meat except for fish is called a pescetarian, not a vegetarian. Some people call themselves vegetarians but still eat fish and chicken, but many would agree that they are just picky meat eaters.

Veganism goes beyond what somebody eats. Donald Watson, the founder of the Vegan Society, came up with the word "vegan" in 1944 by using the first three and the last two letters of vegetarian, calling veganism the "beginning and end of vegetarianism". He defined veganism as the following:

“Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.”

While vegetarianism is merely a diet, veganism is what someone eats, wears, and uses. Vegans do not eat meat, dairy, eggs, honey, and the broths and gravies made from animals. Vegans also do not wear fur, leather, wool, silk, or any animal skins. What Donald Watson meant by "any other purpose" was that vegans do not use soaps or shampoos that contain animal ingredients or were tested on animals. Vegans also do not entertain themselves with the exploitation of animals at circuses, rodeos, zoos, etc.

Common misuse: Some people call themselves vegans only referring to their diet. Some people say that vegans can eat honey. Others call themselves vegans but sometimes "cheat" weekly or monthly and eat animal products. All of these are not examples of veganism, but usually things said by people who don't know how to use a dictionary and get all of their ethical guidance from celebrities who jump on health food bandwagons.