Fwd: Shalom/My very comprehensive article on "Why Jews Should be Vegans," published in the Times of Israel/Please share/comments annd suggestions are very welcome/KOL tuv/Richard
Maynard S. Clark
Below is a structured philosophical analysis of the argument advanced by Richard H. Schwartz in his essay “Why Jews Should Be Vegans,” together with an expansion of how similar reasoning could be reformulated into deontological, consequentialist, and virtue-ethical arguments for universal veganism.
I. What Schwartz Is Arguing (Targeted to Religious Jews)
Schwartz’s primary audience is religiously committed Jews. His argumentative structure typically proceeds as follows:
-
Normative Premise (Internal to Judaism):
Judaism affirms values such as tza’ar ba’alei chayim (preventing animal suffering), stewardship of the Earth (bal tashchit), preservation of health, justice, and compassion. -
Empirical Premise (Contemporary Reality):
Modern animal agriculture causes massive suffering, environmental degradation, climate destabilization, public health harm, and resource injustice. -
Interpretive Claim:
Biblical concessions to meat consumption were historically contextual, not morally ideal. The Edenic diet was plant-based; prophetic visions anticipate peace and nonviolence. -
Conclusion (Particular):
Faithful Jews, seeking consistency with core Jewish values under present conditions, ought to adopt veganism.
Logical Structure:
- If Judaism commands compassion, stewardship, and justice;
- And if contemporary animal agriculture systematically violates those values;
- Then Jews committed to Judaism ought to refrain from supporting that system;
- Therefore, Jews ought to be vegan.
This is internally coherent. It is an argument from covenantal consistency: align conduct with professed values under present facts.
II. Is Schwartz Making a Virtue Ethics Case?
Yes, largely.
He frequently appeals to:
- Compassion,
- Moral sensitivity,
- Spiritual integrity,
- Moral elevation,
- Alignment with prophetic ideals.
This is virtue-oriented reasoning:
A virtuous Jew seeks to cultivate compassion, humility, justice, and responsibility. Given present realities, consuming animal products conflicts with those virtues. Therefore, the virtuous response is veganism.
This is not purely rule-based (deontological) nor purely outcome-based (consequentialist). It is both (i) character-based and (ii) identity-based.
However, not all philosophers accept virtue ethics as foundational, and not all Jews accept that reinterpretive move. So broader arguments are possible.
III. Reconstructing Three (3) Distinct Ethical Cases for Universal Veganism
A. The Deontological Case (Duty-Based)
Structure:
- It is wrong to cause unnecessary harm to sentient beings.
- Modern animal agriculture causes severe, systematic, and unnecessary harm.
- Humans can thrive without animal products.
- Therefore, participation in animal agriculture violates a duty not to cause unnecessary harm.
- Therefore, everyone has a duty to refrain from supporting it.
This does not depend on Jewish identity. It rests on:
- The moral status of sentient beings,
- The principle of nonmaleficence,
- The wrongness of unnecessary harm.
This is compatible with Kantian extensions, rights theory, and certain natural law views.
B. The Consequentialist Case (Outcome-Based)
Structure:
-
Actions should be evaluated by their consequences for (preserving and/or improving) well-being and (avoiding or reducing) harm.
-
Animal agriculture:
- Causes massive animal suffering,
- Contributes significantly to climate disruption,
- Drives deforestation and biodiversity loss,
- Increases zoonotic disease risk,
- Exacerbates food injustice.
-
A global shift toward vegan diets would reduce these harms substantially.
-
Therefore, to minimize suffering and risk, people ought to adopt vegan diets.
Although NOT presented that way, this line of reasoning - argumentation - is independent of religious tradition.
It appeals to:
- Harm reduction,
- Risk mitigation,
- Global survival,
- Intergenerational justice.
Interestingly, Schwartz often gestures toward these arguments in his environmental and public health writings.
C. The Virtue Ethics Case (Character-Based)
Structure:
- A good person cultivates compassion, temperance, justice, and responsibility.
- Participating in systems of large-scale animal suffering erodes compassion and moral coherence.
- Refusing such participation expresses integrity, mercy, and moral seriousness.
- Therefore, a virtuous person ought to be vegan.
This argument:
- Appeals to moral formation,
- Emphasizes character over rules,
- Sees veganism as an expression of moral refinement.
Schwartz’s distinctive move is to root this virtue case in Jewish covenantal identity.
IV. The Difference Between Particular and Universal Arguments
Schwartz’s argument is targeted:
“If you accept Judaism’s moral commitments, then consistency requires veganism.”
But that structure can be generalized:
If a tradition affirms:
- Compassion,
- Justice,
- Stewardship,
- Reverence for life,
And if contemporary animal agriculture violates those values,
Then adherents of that tradition ought to reject participation.
This reasoning could apply to:
- Christians,
- Muslims,
- Secular humanists,
- Environmental ethicists,
- Public health advocates.
The key move is the bridge principle:
Values + Current Facts → Moral Revision of Practice.
V. Intellectual Tension: Ritual, History, and Moral Development
Schwartz’s argument is correct to observe that change or alignment requires reinterpretation of:
- Biblical sacrificial systems,
- Rabbinic permissions,
- Traditional food rituals.
He treats meat consumption as:
- Historically tolerated,
- Spiritually transitional,
- Not morally ideal.
That move requires a theory of moral progress within tradition.
Philosophically, this resembles:
- Developmental natural law,
- Progressive revelation models,
- Ethical evolution within covenantal frameworks.
Not all religious philosophers accept that interpretive flexibility. That is where debate arises.
VI. Comparative Strengths of the Three Approaches
Deontological strength:
- Clear moral prohibition.
- Does not depend on outcomes or identity.
- Universally translatable.
Consequentialist strength:
- Empirically grounded.
- Appeals to global survival concerns.
- Speaks to policy.
Virtue ethics strength:
- Deeply formative.
- Speaks to character and identity.
- Integrates moral psychology.
Virtue ethics weakness:
- Not universally accepted.
- Can be criticized as culturally embedded.
- Less determinate in policy.
VII. Toward a Unified Case
A powerful universal argument would integrate all three:
- Deontological: It is wrong to cause unnecessary harm.
- Consequentialist: Animal agriculture causes massive, preventable harm.
- Virtue ethics: Compassion and integrity require refusing such participation.
When all three converge, the case becomes philosophically robust.
VIII. Final Reflection
Schwartz’s project is not merely dietary reform. It is moral alignment under contemporary conditions.
His core claim can be abstracted as:
When inherited permissions conflict with present knowledge of harm, moral seriousness requires re-evaluation.
That principle extends far beyond (devoted, loyal, consistent) practitioners of) Judaism (although the Moral Law - construed as inward - the Moral Law within - or in the nature of things).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When inherited permissions conflict with well-established knowledge about preventable harm, moral seriousness requires re-evaluation — not because a community revises its customs, but because the moral law, understood as intrinsic to reality, does not change.
In that formulation, the appeal is no longer exclusively to Judaism, nor even to religious identity. It becomes an argument about moral structure:
- There exists a moral order — whether understood as divine command, natural law, rational duty, or the “moral law within.” [Jews were taught historically about it, and it seems that others may have been taught historically, also.]
- That order includes prohibitions against unnecessary harm, cruelty, and reckless destruction.
- Modern animal agriculture inflicts vast, systematic, and unnecessary harm.
- Therefore, fidelity to the moral law requires withdrawal from participation in that harm.
Under this view, tradition does not generate morality; it reflects it imperfectly. Customs may persist under historical constraints, but moral law remains constant. As knowledge expands — about sentience, ecological fragility, public health, and systemic violence — alignment with that law demands recalibration of practice.
Thus the case extends:
- Beyond observant Jews,
- Beyond any single religious framework,
- Beyond virtue ethics alone.
It becomes a claim about coherence between conscience and conduct.
The deeper philosophical claim is that moral development is not moral invention. It is moral recognition — the gradual uncovering of implications already embedded in the structure of reality.
If that is correct, then veganism is not merely a lifestyle preference, nor a sectarian discipline, nor a modern innovation. It is a response to the convergence of:
- Deontological duty (do not cause unnecessary harm),
- Consequential clarity (the harms are vast and avoidable),
- Virtuous character (compassion, restraint, integrity),
- And fidelity to the moral law understood as inward, rational, and objective.
In that sense, the argument does not depend on one's being Jewish. It depends on being morally serious (and maybe 'rational' - or morally rational).
What IS "moral reasoning"??
Maynard
From: Richard H. Schwartz <rschw...@aol.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 9:14 AM
Subject: Shalom/
My very comprehensive article on "Why Jews Should be Vegans," published in the Times of Israel/
Please share/
comments and suggestions are very welcome/
KOL tuv/
Richard
Author of Vegan Revolution: Saving Our World, Revitalizing Judaism; Judaism and Vegetarianism; Judaism and Global Survival; Mathematics and Global Survival; and Who Stole My Religion? Revitalizing Judaism and Applying Jewish Values to Help Heal Our Imperiled Planet; and over 300 articles at Jewish-Vegan.org
President Emeritus of JewishVeg,now, Center for Jewish Food Ethics (JewishFoodEthics.org); President, Society Of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians (SERV)
Associate producer of A SACRED DUTY