Is it wrong to eat meat?

[newharper]

I'm the worst kind of meat eater - I know it's wrong but I eat it anyway. I don't feel guilty though.

IMO that is not necessarily the worst kind. Would you be able to gut or butcher your own meat?

Not admitting the connection between killing a fluffy animal and the shrink-wrapped lump in the supermarket is the hypocrisy that annoys me.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I know a vege who hates the idea of killing animals for food, hates hunting, animal testing etc.. yet he was all for the invasion of Iraq because as he once said "On balance I thought it would kill less people than Saddam would".

Weirdo.

Anyhow, as you were....

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Anyway, more explicitly in response to the OP...

There are definitely some reasons to not eat meat or dairy which could be perceived to be moral choices. However, I don't agree that (most) morality should be seen as a constant, immutable truth, therefore the morality of meat eating will always be subjective. Due to that subjectivity, people will always reach the compromises which they can live with.

And it doesn't have to just be veggie/non veggie. My boyfriend for example is worried about the environmental aspects to eating meat, and therefore is happy to live with a pescetarian and eat a almost completely vegetarian diet at home. Myself, I am a pescetarian which doesn't mean I've ignored the problem of over-fishing in the oceans - it means that I've experimented with a number of years with my diet and what I feel comfortable with/what I can feasibly do, and having certain seafoods there as an occasional treat and an allowance in certain sauces works for me. I still firmly believe that if you are concerned about the morality of eating, then making some sort of stand is still better than making none.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

IMO that is not necessarily the worst kind. Would you be able to gut or butcher your own meat? .

Do you do those things?

Could you?

 

[Gavin Bl]

Well, depends on your moral reasons for not eating meat. If you don't want to eat it because you don't want to eat an animal that has been killed for you then it's not morally inconsistent to eat meat. If you don't eat meat because you disagree with farming methods, then perhaps it is. But as I said, everyone is inconsistent about something, and I'd still rather someone with beliefs make half a stand than no stand at all.

I agree AS, and good for you if you choose that for ethical reasons - but lots of people aren't making ethical decisions when they eat meat, they are just following the standard cultural practice. Veganism is difficult as you say, but its difficult as its a total departure from the way that northern Europeans eat.

Thats your choice to make that sacrifice, and more power to your elbow for taking that on, but its not up to anyone else to provide vegan fast food to make your life easier. Vegans are a small diffuse minority, there's no money in it for anyone, and why should they work on an unprofitable line, when they have to make a living like anyone else. If there were more vegans, there'd be vegan food easily available - its you choice, you have to take the hit.

cheers
Gav

 

[inflatable jesus]

Aren't ethics a purely personal thing? One might even argue that there is no such thing as universal anything apart from the physical world, and ethics don't seem to be part of that world.

I don't agree that (most) morality should be seen as a constant, immutable truth, therefore the morality of meat eating will always be subjective. Due to that subjectivity, people will always reach the compromises which they can live with.

I think people can and do argue over what is right and wrong but that ethics really have to be universal or else you slide into the abyss of relativism.

Take murder for example. Very few people would disagree that murder is wrong. If I was to state that murder is wrong, then I probably wouldn't be saying 'I feel like murder is wrong, but that's just my personal opinion' I would be saying that murder is always wrong whenever anyone does it.

Now obviously people can disagree with your reasons for arriving at that conclusion. If you arrived at it through utilitarianism or divine revelation then somebody else could attack your methodology but it still doesn't change the intention of your statement 'murder is wrong'. It still seems like a universal claim to me.

'I don't like to murder', is a perfectly fine subjective statement, as is 'I don't like to eat meat'. But as soon as you bring in terms like 'wrong', 'immoral' or 'unethical' I can't see how that could be anything other than a statement meant to be understood as universally applying.

My understanding of ethics is more or less that it's a bag of intuitive responses created by our evolutionary history that we then try to universally apply along guidelines of fairness and equality. So for 'murder is wrong' I would instinctively feel that my being murdered would be quite tragic (evolutionary instinct for survival), that my family or friends being murdered would be bad (evolutionary instinct for group protection) and then if I tried to reason it out, I would then concede that it must always be wrong because me and my family are really no more special than anyone else.

Of course, that's contentious. But that's my current understanding of ethics.

So that leaves me with a problem when it comes to the moral claims about vegetarianism. It doesn't instinctively feel wrong to me. I can see why the thought of killing an animal would put the willies up some people, but I suspect that it's mostly due to a misplaced anthropomorphic feeling that we have towards animals. I think that one species killing and eating an other is a fairly natural state of affairs on this planet and that the instinct we have to shy away from this is just our empathy instincts turning up where they don't really belong.

I mean, you can reason out the wrongness from a more general utilitarianism or other prohibition on murder, but like I said earlier. I can't really see why this should cross the species barrier. It seems perfectly natural to me to regard other species as less worthy of moral consideration. I don't feel like I need to protect the Gazelles from the Lions and I don't feel like I need to protect the chickens from my appetite. Both seem to be examples of nature taking it's course.

I can't say I can really get into that Foie Gras business though. I think I'm too common for that kind of thing!

 

[In Bloom]

I wonder how vegans expect organic crops to be fertilised, once we've stopped breeding livestock

 

[In Bloom]

IMO that is not necessarily the worst kind. Would you be able to gut or butcher your own meat?

Not admitting the connection between killing a fluffy animal and the shrink-wrapped lump in the supermarket is the hypocrisy that annoys me.

I'd really love it if people with this attitude started applying it to other areas.

"Well, I couldn't bring myself to go and work in the sewers myself, so I just stopped using indoor plumbing altogether..."

 

[smmudge]

Take murder for example. Very few people would disagree that murder is wrong. If I was to state that murder is wrong, then I probably wouldn't be saying 'I feel like murder is wrong, but that's just my personal opinion' I would be saying that murder is always wrong whenever anyone does it.

But what about murder in self-defence? Ethics can be subjective to different situations, not just different people/cultures.

So that leaves me with a problem when it comes to the moral claims about vegetarianism. It doesn't instinctively feel wrong to me. I can see why the thought of killing an animal would put the willies up some people, but I suspect that it's mostly due to a misplaced anthropomorphic feeling that we have towards animals. I think that one species killing and eating an other is a fairly natural state of affairs on this planet and that the instinct we have to shy away from this is just our empathy instincts turning up where they don't really belong.

In answer to the original question, I don't think it is 'wrong' to eat meat, I don't think it is 'right' either. I think it's natural, but I don't think the way we produce meat is natural at all, which is why I choose not to eat it. It isn't the killing of animals, it's the way they live.

I've been vegan for a while and was vegetarian since I was a kid. It's not even something I notice anymore, so it's not like I 'miss' anything. And I don't feel 'morally superior' either, it was just a personal choice and I completely understand why people eat meat (especially when I smell frying bacon )

 

[inflatable jesus]

But what about murder in self-defence? Ethics can be subjective to different situations, not just different people/cultures.

You might think this is needlessly nitpicky, but I don't think that's really subjectivity.I think it's just the limits of that particular moral claim.

You could use the self-defence argument to either say that it's not a valid claim or you could tack it on as a qualifier. But, for it to be really subjective you would have to believe that saying murder is wrong is just an opinion, and saying murder is perfectly okay is an equally valid opinion. If you believe there are merits that can be evaluated impartially, then it's not entirely subjective.

I've been vegan for a while and was vegetarian since I was a kid. It's not even something I notice anymore, so it's not like I 'miss' anything. And I don't feel 'morally superior' either, it was just a personal choice and I completely understand why people eat meat (especially when I smell frying bacon )

Honestly, I think that's really the best way to look at it. It's a perfectly fine choice and anyone should feel free to make it. The ethics of it all are all a little too tricky to pin down though.

 

[smmudge]

You might think this is needlessly nitpicky, but I don't think that's really subjectivity.I think it's just the limits of that particular moral claim.

You could use the self-defence argument to either say that it's not a valid claim or you could tack it on as a qualifier. But, for it to be really subjective you would have to believe that saying murder is wrong is just an opinion, and saying murder is perfectly okay is an equally valid opinion. If you believe there are merits that can be evaluated impartially, then it's not entirely subjective.

But the whether something is 'murder' or not might be an opinion given different situations - some people will call an event murder, while others will say it is manslaughter, collateral damage etc. and therefore not 'wrong'.

So maybe it's perfectly ok to say 'murder is wrong' but then you have to ask 'what is murder?' (and while we're at it 'what is wrong?') and are you really any better off than when you started?

 

[Gmart]

Wasn't it Gandhi who said that consistency is the last refuge of the fool?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I agree AS, and good for you if you choose that for ethical reasons - but lots of people aren't making ethical decisions when they eat meat, they are just following the standard cultural practice. Veganism is difficult as you say, but its difficult as its a total departure from the way that northern Europeans eat.

Thats your choice to make that sacrifice, and more power to your elbow for taking that on, but its not up to anyone else to provide vegan fast food to make your life easier. Vegans are a small diffuse minority, there's no money in it for anyone, and why should they work on an unprofitable line, when they have to make a living like anyone else. If there were more vegans, there'd be vegan food easily available - its you choice, you have to take the hit.

cheers
Gav

Except that it's not as though meat eaters can't eat veggie or vegan food - in fact many of the meat eaters I know are happy to do so and often prefer to do so, even if they wouldn't want to cut out meat generally. Vegetarianism is more common these days and food retailers make allowances for this, more than they used to in the past. However, as food retailers are being more commonly seen as having some sort of responsibility to their consumers (supermarket's colour coding of foods based on fat, sugar and salt levels for example), you do wonder whether increased vegan provision would also be a way of offering veggie options which aren't loaded with saturated fat; it could even be a healthier alternative to many meat eaters.

Anyway, the original point was that veganism isn't something that is easy to do, it's a lot harder work than being veggie and more stigmitising as well, therefore I can quite see why many veggies chose to eat dairy and egg. I don't think they should be attacked for inconsistency.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I think people can and do argue over what is right and wrong but that ethics really have to be universal or else you slide into the abyss of relativism.

So what ethics are universal? From my understanding most cultures this side of the common era have viewed homosexuality as immoral, and our (relatively) tolerant society is actually an usual case. Same for the view that women should have equality. So does that homophobia and sexism a morally correct choice because it has been almost universally shared in the last 2000 years?

You talk about murder - murder is quite a good one which whilst also being considered an immoral act by all cultures, also feels as if it should have universal application. Same with rape, and causing serious harm to another human being. The murder one fits your description of interfering with the evolutionary instincts for survival and group protection, rape doesn't fit quite as well, although you could argue that it is relevant of evolution because (in the case of male/female rape at least) it interferes with the female's ability to select her mate. But people do consider other things as moral questions, and how morality has been defined is culture specific to a degree.

So that leaves me with a problem when it comes to the moral claims about vegetarianism. It doesn't instinctively feel wrong to me. I can see why the thought of killing an animal would put the willies up some people, but I suspect that it's mostly due to a misplaced anthropomorphic feeling that we have towards animals. I think that one species killing and eating an other is a fairly natural state of affairs on this planet and that the instinct we have to shy away from this is just our empathy instincts turning up where they don't really belong.

There is a thing called Maslow's Pyramid of Needs.
In brief it suggests that an individual's first priority is to have certain survival needs and basic drives met, i.e. food, water, sleep, sex etc. After that there are several levels of needs arranged on a scale, and once people have needs met at the bottom of the scale then they can go up to needing the next level. So once you have your needs met on the scales of physiological needs, safety and love/belonging and esteem, you can move to the final level of need, self actualisation. For example, this is why once you've got a steady flow of needed resources, a secure environment, love and esteem, then you can start worrying about wider issues, for example such as whether it is really right to make animals suffer for food and to contribute to the destruction of the environment to create that food when we could easily eat other things.

Also, I see no reason for why society can't be viewed in a similar way - that as the basic needs of the majority of the general population are met then that will define what moral issues we contemplate. As we live in a society where most people aren't starving, then perhaps we have more space to consider such issues. Of course arguing for the rights of other people who aren't in such a privileged position is yet another thing we can do when we have our basic needs met, and won't do until they are met.

I mean, you can reason out the wrongness from a more general utilitarianism or other prohibition on murder, but like I said earlier. I can't really see why this should cross the species barrier. It seems perfectly natural to me to regard other species as less worthy of moral consideration. I don't feel like I need to protect the Gazelles from the Lions and I don't feel like I need to protect the chickens from my appetite. Both seem to be examples of nature taking it's course.

You could also argue that modern farming methods are so unlike the "natural" way of killing meat that comparing protecting the cows from the people is quite unlike protecting the gazelles from the lions, and that there are other issues which justify a debate.

 

[inflatable jesus]

So what ethics are universal?

I think maybe I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying. I wasn't suggesting that ethics are universally agreed on, or need to be universally agreed on. I was saying ethical claims by nature claim to be universal.

There is a thing called Maslow's Pyramid of Needs.

I think that there is something to that and if you look at places outwith the developed world, then you begin to see it taking effect. However, I think that's it's a construction and not any kind of natural law. I especially don't think that it necessarily applies to animals.

I think most people intuitively feel that my need to own a chain of supermarket and everything in them is trumped by a homeless person who needs to steal food to survive. I don't think people intuitively feel that an animals needs rate high enough to interfere with our designs on their delicious flesh.

Also, when you reason it out, you can apply the whole Rawlsian thing and agree that having those high status needs met is in everyone's interest. That's kind of premised on the idea that you would agree to it if you were somehow put in another person's position. With animals, it seems like a stretch too far to imagine how you would feel about the food chain if you were a chicken.

Also, I see no reason for why society can't be viewed in a similar way - that as the basic needs of the majority of the general population are met then that will define what moral issues we contemplate. As we live in a society where most people aren't starving, then perhaps we have more space to consider such issues. Of course arguing for the rights of other people who aren't in such a privileged position is yet another thing we can do when we have our basic needs met, and won't do until they are met.

I think there is something to this, but honestly I don't feel like the rights of an animal are pressing enough to stop me from eating meat. Perhaps when nobody is going hungry and we have tasty and delicious high protein alternatives, then I might be convinced to care about the pigs and chickens. However, you could also use that argument about the rights of unborn children. Perhaps we will also get to the point were everyone is so happy that we will be concerned about them too.

Or, maybe we should be happy with there being borders to our moral considerations. Who knows?

You could also argue that modern farming methods are so unlike the "natural" way of killing meat that comparing protecting the cows from the people is quite unlike protecting the gazelles from the lions, and that there are other issues which justify a debate.

I don't really think that's all that relevant. If we treated all the animals nicely before we killed them, would that change the basic rightness or wrongness of killing animals to eat them? If the Lions tortured the gazelles would we be obligated to stop them?

My gut says no.

 

[smmudge]

I don't really think that's all that relevant. If we treated all the animals nicely before we killed them, would that change the basic rightness or wrongness of killing animals to eat them?

I think it's entirely relevant. The reason I don't eat meat is because of the way it is raised and how it lived, I'm not overly bothered with the fact it's a dead animal. If I had hunted and killed my own meat, I would be happy to eat it. I think animals have a right to live in a way that they can't in factory farms.

If the Lions tortured the gazelles would we be obligated to stop them?

That would be rather hypocritical of us! Now tell me, when, for instance, a cat catches a mouse and plays with it instead of eating it, do you think the cat is aware that it is causing pain to another animal?

 

[purves grundy]

so long as you don't inhale, j.edgar hoover style

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Inflatable Jesus, afraid I've just finished writing 2000+ words of academic balls so not really motivated to give a detailed point by point analysis of your post! I might be able to do better in a day or two. But to address your general point that (in your morality ) animal's rights are not as worthy as humans, meaning that there is no moral issue in farming and killing a cow to provide steak, I just wondered how you felt about animal cruelty. Is it wrong for people to torture animals such as cats and dogs? And if you do think that this isn't ideal behaviour, do you draw a distinction between the torture of some animals and not others?

 

[inflatable jesus]

I think it's entirely relevant. The reason I don't eat meat is because of the way it is raised and how it lived, I'm not overly bothered with the fact it's a dead animal. If I had hunted and killed my own meat, I would be happy to eat it. I think animals have a right to live in a way that they can't in factory farms.

That's a fine point and one that I might take some time to consider. But for me it's a seperate question from 'Is it wrong to eat meat'? I was really talking about the ethics of the principle in general.

That would be rather hypocritical of us! Now tell me, when, for instance, a cat catches a mouse and plays with it instead of eating it, do you think the cat is aware that it is causing pain to another animal?

In some way, yes the cat probably understands that, but I think it's important not to anthropomorphise as it can lead us to some silly places. The cat can probably see the effects of it's claws on the mouse and knows that it is disabling it, making it easier to eat. But as far as I know, cats lack the empathy skills of a human and don't have a theory of mind. So my understanding is that a cat's brain is not physically incapable of putting the cat in the mouse's shoes in the way a human can.

If anyone else knows more about TOM in cats, feel free to correct me. I'm just making an educated guess.

I think the ability of a human to do this is one of the reasons that our ethics are best applied to other humans. We think about how certain things feel to an animal as if we could really conceive of it, which we can't. We don't know what the chickens in the battery farms think, because we're not chickens. In all likelihood, they probably don't 'think' at all. They do just do their little chicken thing and we know about as much about that as we do about how a carrot feels when somebody picks it.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Inflatable Jesus, afraid I've just finished writing 2000+ words of academic balls so not really motivated to give a detailed point by point analysis of your post! I might be able to do better in a day or two. But to address your general point that (in your morality ) animal's rights are not as worthy as humans, meaning that there is no moral issue in farming and killing a cow to provide steak, I just wondered how you felt about animal cruelty. Is it wrong for people to torture animals such as cats and dogs? And if you do think that this isn't ideal behaviour, do you draw a distinction between the torture of some animals and not others?

Feel free to take as long as you like and to keep your answers as short as you like. I'm really just throwing out ideas to try and better discover what I think about these things. I'm really not trying to 'win' a debate or anything.

Animal Cruelty.

I intuitively feel like it's wrong. Gratuitous or needless cruelty just seems instinctively creepy, but I'm not convinced that feeling is anything other than anthropomorphic and not really logical.

If I found out that my next door neighbour liked to torture puppies I would feel a little grossed out by the thought. However, the only thing I could actively reason out about why it is wrong would be that it would make me wonder about the mental stability of my neighbour.

I can't say that I can really draw a logical distinction between some animals and others. I might squish a bug faster than I would shoot a kitten, but I don't think there is a clear moral dividing line. We just like cats and dogs better than mosquitos and sewer rats because it's easier to do our little anthropomorphic empathy trick with them.

We like to pretend that when the cat rubs it's side sweat glands on us, it's giving us cuddles and when our dog mistakes us for it's pack leader it's the same thing as the human emotion of love. I think one of the weird side effects of our big brain is that we tend to mistake some animals for furry little humans.

 

[Gmart]

Am I to be judged on every pound I spend?

That it might go somewhere dodgy?

Like spending money on drugs?

It is an assumption to state that humans and animals (sic) should be the same or different.

Kittens ARE sweet tho...

 

[Agent Sparrow]

We like to pretend that when the cat rubs it's side sweat glands on us, it's giving us cuddles and when our dog mistakes us for it's pack leader it's the same thing as the human emotion of love. I think one of the weird side effects of our big brain is that we tend to mistake some animals for furry little humans.

How dare you! Kitties are furry little humans

I get what you say about the dangers of anthropomorphising, but I think you can make a case that emotions and consciousnesses are on the continuum. After all, why do more people balk at the idea of harming more intelligent creatures like chimps or dolphins, if it isn't that we perceive their experience of suffering as slightly more like ours? Also some emotions may go back a long way in evolution - fear for example was probably the first emotion to develop as a very quick way of getting the animal out of danger. To some degree it's been there for a very long time. On top of the fact that we know animals feel pain that abusive behaviour can caused conditioned adversions, we can tell that animals can suffer.

I actually started a thread about where emotions start in animals a while ago. You mention love - well, what is love apart from the main mechanism of bonding behaviour, and bonding behaviour has been around for a very long time. Now, obviously I'm not implying that Lassie can be so smitten he can be in love like we would, but I also wouldn't be surprised that in our desire to see ourself as so different to animals and not anthropomorphise, we can downplay their subjective experience of bonding.

 

[inflatable jesus]

How dare you! Kitties are furry little humans

I get what you say about the dangers of anthropomorphising, but I think you can make a case that emotions and consciousnesses are on the continuum. After all, why do more people balk at the idea of harming more intelligent creatures like chimps or dolphins, if it isn't that we perceive their experience of suffering as slightly more like ours? Also some emotions may go back a long way in evolution - fear for example was probably the first emotion to develop as a very quick way of getting the animal out of danger. To some degree it's been there for a very long time. On top of the fact that we know animals feel pain that abusive behaviour can caused conditioned adversions, we can tell that animals can suffer.

I actually started a thread about where emotions start in animals a while ago. You mention love - well, what is love apart from the main mechanism of bonding behaviour, and bonding behaviour has been around for a very long time. Now, obviously I'm not implying that Lassie can be so smitten he can be in love like we would, but I also wouldn't be surprised that in our desire to see ourself as so different to animals and not anthropomorphise, we can downplay their subjective experience of bonding.

I actually agree with that to a degree, but when here's my problem with that thread of thought:

If we're talking about pain and suffering existing in non-human animals, we're talking about evolutionary responses to danger and attack, if we think that's a bad thing in dogs, then it's a bad thing in chickens, if it's a bad thing in chickens, it's a bad thing in frogs, etc etc all the way down to it being a bad thing to poke a cell on a slide in a lab and watching it try to move away from the danger.

Where is the logical cut-off? Our intuinitions seem to want to cut it off at the level of cute animals that display human-like characteristics and that really can't be right. If we try to universalize it, then we end up with the possibility that it's wrong to kill the spiders living in your closet. Or depending on you definition it may also be wrong to kill the flu virus filling your nose with mucus.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I just had a barbequed steak, and I'm typing with fingers sticky with marrow grease.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I actually agree with that to a degree, but when here's my problem with that thread of thought:

If we're talking about pain and suffering existing in non-human animals, we're talking about evolutionary responses to danger and attack, if we think that's a bad thing in dogs, then it's a bad thing in chickens, if it's a bad thing in chickens, it's a bad thing in frogs, etc etc all the way down to it being a bad thing to poke a cell on a slide in a lab and watching it try to move away from the danger.

Where is the logical cut-off? Our intuinitions seem to want to cut it off at the level of cute animals that display human-like characteristics and that really can't be right. If we try to universalize it, then we end up with the possibility that it's wrong to kill the spiders living in your closet. Or depending on you definition it may also be wrong to kill the flu virus filling your nose with mucus.

I guess there has to be an arbitrary cutoff.

Going back to chimps, studies have suggested that chimps can get a basic level of language (about approximate to a 2 year old child). There have also been studies suggesting that dolphins can learn rudimentary sign language so as to follow relatively complex instructions (i.e. go under the hoop rather than over it to get the ball). So therefore it's not too much of a jump to hypothosise that they may feel some quite complex "emotions". Likewise you could hypothosise that the further back it goes, the less complex the emotional world of the animal. But where you draw the line is ultimately (with what we know at the moment) about a personal judgment. Me? I think for my personal judgment I'll draw the line at at least mammals. But I realise that may be flawed, and also it's a risk that I am anthropomorphising creatures which share similarities to me.

 

[NoEgo]

Ive often asked myself this question. Thing is, i sometimes really need to eat red meat. And i feel better for doing so.

Not going vegan yet!

 

[smmudge]

In some way, yes the cat probably understands that, but I think it's important not to anthropomorphise as it can lead us to some silly places. The cat can probably see the effects of it's claws on the mouse and knows that it is disabling it, making it easier to eat. But as far as I know, cats lack the empathy skills of a human and don't have a theory of mind. So my understanding is that a cat's brain is not physically incapable of putting the cat in the mouse's shoes in the way a human can.

I don't think considering the responsive and emotive abilities of other living creatures leads to anthropomorphising. I'm well aware that I will never know the truth of how much different animals feel pain/suffering, or how much they 'think' or how they perceive the world, but that doesn't stop me from considering it.

The point I was trying to make with the cat and mouse was that, you're right, cats and other animals don't seem to have the 'empathy' skills that humans possess. Therefore a lion torturing a gazelle will feel under no obligation to stop, because it doesn't understand the pain it is causing. Whereas humans DO understand that they are causing pain, which is why we are blessed (or ummm...burdened) with morals.

 

[Slash]

You'd be surprised what products dairy and other animal products are in. Did you eat bread at all in these weeks where you've eaten vegan? Most commercial bread has non vegan products in it, and many vegans have to make their own. A lot of people don't know that though, and I've heard people say they've been eating vegan for the week as they chomp into a humous sandwich from tesco.

You're right, it can be done with preparation, but I'd hold that it still takes a hell of a lot of it rather than it being minimal.
<snip>
Perhaps that is a sacrifice some people should make if they wish to follow that lifestyle choice, but it's certainly not an easy option which limits it's feasibility for many people.

Please read Practical vs Symbolic Vegans.