Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio studied people who had received brain injuries that had had one specific effect: to damage that part of the brain where emotions are generated. In all other respects they seemed normal – they just lost the ability to feel emotions.

The interesting thing he found was that their ability to make decisions was seriously impaired. They could logically describe what they should be doing, in practice they found it very difficult to make decisions about where to live, what to eat, etc.

If that’s hard to understand, it goes like this: logic and emotion are tired together. The “logical decisions” appear, based on modern neuroscience, to actually originate in our emotions.

My logical argument for veganism:

1. Humans do not need to eat animal products to thrive, let alone survive.
2. Exploiting and killing non-human animals harms them.
3. Since humans do not need animal products, to use and kill them is gratuitous harm, and unethical.

It’s straightforward to me, but if you need to read more words on the topic, you might enjoy these three posts : http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

I’m not quite sure what to make of your post. It appears to be more of a recitation of prejudices than an exploration of the titled topic. Allow me to elaborate.

Early in the blog you state:
“Emotions are feminine, logic is masculine, and therefore (the story goes) logic is better.”
I understand that it is a sexist stereotype that women are emotional and men are logical, and it appears that you are opposed to this idea. I too am opposed to this idea because it is a gross oversimplification of the observation that men and women think differently. It is out of the poor understanding between sexes of how the opposite thinks that these misrepresentative stereotypes have been borne. I know from experience that women are capable of logical thought processes. As an engineer I have met many women who demonstrate this fact on a daily basis. My ex-girlfriend in fact earned higher marks than I at college and is now working on her PhD at MIT. I have a tremendous amount of respect for her, and that relationship only served to increase my already very high respect for women. Sadly it was the distance and difference in career paths which drove us apart.

With this extra bit of context about my viewpoint noted, I would now like to point out that the sex association of logic vs emotion is NOT the reason that logic is seen as superior. This is where I believe you are merely reciting your own prejudices. Logic is seen as superior to because of the results it produces. The tools and conveniences of modern society were built on logic. Emotion does not design bridges, computers, prosthetics, cancer treatments, automobiles, or solar cells; logic, by means of the scientific method, does. Emotion is by definition subjective, while logic is by definition objective. The entire purpose of logic is to outline a set of rules, the adherence of which removes personal (emotional) bias from the result. Furthermore, because the laws of logic are universal, anyone who wishes to do so can verify anyone else’s logical works. This is in contrast to emotion which is experienced on a personal basis and cannot necessarily be understood by third parties. These are the reasons why logic is seen as superior: it is both impartial and universal.

As stated above, I am an engineer, more specifically an electrical engineer. My entire life revolves around the practical application of logic. Emotion does not help me in my job. Yet the product of my job enhances the lives of others. The key difference I see between the effects of logic and emotion are that logic enables our modern lifestyle, while emotion lets us enjoy it. Without emotion life would be dull, colorless, boring. Without logic, our quality of life would be par with the dark ages, an era in which emotion abounded and logic was witchcraft.

I also see that you believe emotion is important in advocacy. You also state that your own decision to become a vegan was emotional. As I stated above, logic is universal while emotion is personal. Emotion is fine for making personal decisions such as your own because that is your personal right. However, when the topic shifts to lobbying for changes that affect everyone, rather than just yourself, emotion is no longer sufficient. Hard evidence, presented through logical argument, is the most effective way to argue for change because it delivers the cold, hard truth while emotion delivers a personal feeling which may or may not be true. Your stated perception of this viewpoint is: “emotions, and emotional arguments, are faulty, and should be abandoned in favor of logic.” It is important to realize why they are faulty. They are faulty because they are not true for everyone, only for the people who agree with them. Logic is true as long as the facts on which it is based are true. This distinction is paramount to the issue, and again, why I believe you are merely reciting prejudices in this blog.

I would further argue that making decisions that affect everyone based on emotion rather than logic has historically been unethical. Look at the gay rights debate in America, for example. The present state of affairs, in which gays cannot marry in most states, exists because religious viewpoints were written into law for emotional reasons. Today these laws are being overturned, one state at a time, though logical argument. Allow me to explain. The Declaration of Independence tells us that all people have natural, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, the First Amendment to the United State Constitution establishes a personal right to freedom of religion. Through logical reasoning, this right to freedom of religion has been extended to freedom from religion, and a separation of church and state, thus rendering it both unconstitutional and unethical to impose one’s own religious views on others. It through this logical process that gay marriage is now being enabled in law and the emotionally-based opposition to it is finally beginning to crumble.

Lastly I wish to critique your closing thoughts.
“Though there are definitely some who go vegan despite not caring at all about animals, we all go vegan because we care about some aspect of the issue. Yes, indeed, our emotional responses are a significant part of our decisions, and likely play a dominant role.”
Emotional response may play a dominant role in ones personal decisions, but in decisions which affect others it is our civic and ethical responsibility to leave the emotion out of it.

“I’m not saying abandon those carefully crafted logical arguments; I’m offering a reminder that people have to care about the issue before they will change, no matter how strong our logic is.”
What is your logic behind veganism? I understand that all animals can feel pain, and I can understand the emotional desire to not inflict pain onto animals. However, if one merely looks at nature, one can see that balance exists due to a predatory food chain. Pain and suffering occur in nature whether we like it or not. Given that humans evolved as omnivores, and are thus naturally enabled to eat a variety of creatures, there is no natural basis for a logical argument against such. Please do respond as I am interested to read your logical argument for veganism.

All they need is a sniff of compassion.

Lots to think about! And thanks for getting me started thinking about this topic with your comment over at Mary’s blog!