I usually avoid talking about my position on animal rights if nobody asks, but whenever someone brings the topic to the table, whether by joking about eating "meat", i.e. corpses of sentient beings, or by simply asking me why I refuse to eat a certain dish, I can't help but talk about my veganism. Today was one of those days where the topic was brought up in a very displeasing manner.

I was half-listening to my epistemology lecture when my professor said something that caught my attention: "the fact that plants and animals have certain abilities doesn't imply a moral duty towards them". To him there was a risk of making a naturalistic fallacy: inferring a moral duty from a natural fact ("animals and plants have x ability"). The ability discussed was the one to communicate, but he then said that even if we discovered that they were able to suffer (and animals do suffer, although we don't know much about plants), the conclusion would be the same. And, not very surprisingly may I say, he proceeded to mock those foolish vegans who, God forbid, say that we shouldn't eat (I correct him: exploit) animals because they suffer. According to him, when trying to justify the choice to not eat animals, we end up lacking rational reasons to support it. If you're even slightly familiar with moral philosophy, you already know that the same problem arises when you try to justify any moral decision.

During the pause between the two hours of his lecture, I presented my objection to him. He said that he agreed, but then added that veganism is a matter of the privileged and that by affirming what he probably saw as an identity (it isn't, it is an ethical and philosophical position), we would be claiming our moral superiority to those who eat animals. I will show what's wrong in his answer (a longer article about veganism is already planned for my thoughts page) and move on to rant about the type of person he represents: deeply politicized and involved in the mainstream social justice causes (feminism, antiracism, blah blah) while also completely ignorant or disregardful of the controversial ones (even when they are theoretically coherent and accepted by the intellectuals that bother thinking about it).

1) There is no naturalistic fallacy in saying that if animals suffer, we have a duty towards them. Firstly, because the naturalistic fallacy takes the next form: "x is natural, thus x is good". The argument discussed can't be reduced to this form. Secondly, because in this case, the moral duty comes from the negative value we give to suffering, whereas the naturalistic fallacy gives moral value to whatever is natural. Not only his argument was wrong, but also, I have yet to encounter a single moral theory that doesn't give suffering, in and for itself, a negative value.
2) Veganism isn't for the privileged, it is for anybody that cares about suffering. Firstly, if you really, really didn't have the choice (which is seldom the case), then you should already know that ethics presuppose freedom of choice. No freedom, no moral judgment. Next question. Secondly, plants are cheaper than corpses. You don't have to eat avocado toast to be vegan. Eat salad. Eat vegetable couscous. Eat fucking pasta and rice. Thirdly, if you care that much about the unprivileged, why don't you fight for vegan products to be cheaper? The problem isn't: "oh, it takes privilege to be moral so I'll stop being moral so that I can role-play as an unprivileged person", but "how can we make ethical options more accessible to everyone?".
3) Claiming you're vegan doesn't make you seem more morally superior than claiming you're an antiracist, a feminist, an anticapitalist, etc. I think my professor brought this up because, perhaps for once, he was in the supposedly morally inferior club. It is a common reaction from carnists to feel immediately attacked when I say that I am vegan or that I support veganism. It is quite clear to me that if people get this uncomfortable discussing this question it is because they somehow already know that there is something wrong with eating animals. They feel as if I'm accusing them of being immoral because I was probably shedding light on a painful truth - a moral truth about themselves. But in fact, I am not here to judge you. I don't know who you are. But I can know what you do. So if you eat animals when you could avoid it, you are doing something wrong. That's it.

Although I already had plenty of debates with stubborn, often arrogant carnists, this one was particularly annoying. My professor loves giving a political twist to his lectures, and I appreciate it. He frequently shows how seemingly harmless ideas might be oppressive. But what about the idea that veganism is foolish? The irony in this is that he talked about how animals could be subjected to epistemic injustice when we refuse to recognize them as individuals who possess knowledge, consciousness, or a form of rationality. But my brother in Christ, you eat a fucking tortured chicken every two days and that's the best example of injustice towards animals you could find?

There is a huge moral "blind spot" in our societies. But I refuse to look away from reality. Animals deserve respect.