If veganism was limited to the choice of an individual lifestyle, there would be no debate about it. Everyone is free, of course, to eat what they want and to dress as they wish.
Veganism, however, is not just a chosen lifestyle; it’s activism, and that’s understandable. If I were, like those who adhere to this ideology, convinced that eating meat leads to the slaughter of innocent people and that animal slavery is the condition of my omelette, I too would kick in the stretchers. Activist vegans are therefore, in a certain way, coherent, but are they right for all that?
Artisan farmer Dominic Lamontagne thinks not. In The duty from 1er last November, he presented veganism as a dangerous movement for the health of our society. Sharp, the philosopher farmer is not afraid of debate. Driven by the desire to convince the population that the “responsible peasantry” that he defends is superior, on the ethical, environmental and human levels, to “ethical veganism”, Lamontagne therefore invited a supporter of the latter current to an exchange of argumentative letters. The result, which is nicely titled goat and cabbage (Écosociété, 2022, 288 pages), turns out to be captivating.
It’s been a long time, in fact, since I’ve read a good debate like that: muscular, frontal and solidly argued on both sides. Lamontagne knows his stuff, both practically and philosophically and scientifically. Jean-François Dubé, his antagonist, does not give his place either. Holder of a master’s degree in political science on the links between the ideas of the animalist and environmentalist movements, this vegan activist does not allow himself to be imposed by the eloquence of the farmer, to which he replies step by step. The argumentative game, believe me, is raised.
Three major themes are subject to discussion: ethics, health and the environment. According to vegans, in fact, not only would their way of life be beneficial for human health and the environment, it would above all be the only defensible ethical position. It is these claims that Lamontagne attacks.
Before going any further, I must reveal my bias: I am not vegan and I have no intention of becoming one. I obviously want the greatest possible reduction in the suffering inflicted on animals by factory farming, but I do not subscribe to anti-speciesist ideology. I place, in fact, the human species above the others, while insisting on its moral duty to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals.
Like Dominic Lamontagne, I recognize that animals are sentient, that is to say capable of feeling pain and emotions, that they have a moral value, but I refuse the idea of putting an end to my relations. with them and opt for a harm reduction approach instead. Am I a specist? I would rather say humanist, quite simply.
In terms of human health, the exchange between Lamontagne and Dubé is not conclusive. To Dubé who affirms, with supporting studies, that a vegan diet is beneficial for humans, Lamontagne replies, with other studies, that the proof of the virtues of this diet remains to be done over the entire duration of a life since today’s vegans all grew up and developed as omnivores, before converting to veganism.
When it comes to the environment, the scenario repeats itself. Between shrimp from Matane and legumes imported from India, who wins the ethical bet? However, we must agree with the urban Dubé on one thing: the small-scale farming model advocated by Lamontagne “would imply a massive return to the land” which is neither conceivable nor desirable.
Therefore, to feed the entire planet at a reasonable cost, industrial agriculture remains essential. Is it possible to think of it in a harm reduction logic? For Dubé, veganism is the solution. By sticking to his peasant model, Lamontagne here appears to be an idealist.
The heart of the debate therefore lies essentially on the level of ethics. Is eating animal flesh or products derived from animal activity a moral fault? Dubé, without hesitation, answers yes. Lamontagne denounces the inconsistency of this position. Everything we eat, he points out, relies on the work, even the exploitation, of sentient beings, which includes human beings.
Their relationships with animals are complex, but necessary from an ecological point of view. They must be preserved by cultivating a concern not to eliminate the suffering we cause—which is impossible—but to reduce it as much as possible.
Idealists, guys? Yes, certainly, but damn good debaters too.