by Leslie Cross (1914-1979)

From the winter 1955 issue of The Vegan (volume 9 number 7 pages 16-20). Available as PDF. Learn more about Leslie Cross and the history of veganism.

A talk given to the Hasting and St. Leonards Branch of the Sussex Vegetarian Society, July, 1955

The first thing I would like to do is draw your attention to the title of this talk — The Vegan Story. I have called it that, because I wanted to underline the manner in which I am going to try to approach the subject. What I am hoping to do is just what the title suggests: to tell a story; the story of what veganism is, what it sets out to do, and why it sets out to do what it does.

In the course of the story I shall put before you certain facts and certain considerations, but I shall not — at least, not consciously — try either to convert anyone or to conduct any propaganda.

Just in case there may be some of you who feel that this is perhaps a somewhat spiritless approach, I would like to explain that to my way of thinking, it is the right approach.

For while I regard the spread of information, the free flow of information, as being vital to the growth of new ideas, I do not regard it as any part of my duty to try to be consciously persuasive. I think you will probably agree with me that a man should settle upon his way of life as the result of inward conviction, and not as the result of outward persuasive pressure.

With that preamble, let us begin the Vegan Story. And in doing so, we must put first things first; that is, we must know what we are talking about. Fortunately, the word "veganism" has a precise and simple meaning. It means: the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals. Because the question of definition is so obviously an important one, I am going to ask you to be kind enough to commit it to memory, so that when we use the word "veganism" we shall all be thinking of the same thing. Veganism then, is the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.

This definition is written, in exactly those words, in the constitution of the Vegan Society, so that no-one joins the Society as either a full member or an associate without knowing exactly what he is supporting.

It is important to notice that one of the results of this definition is that it makes veganism a principle. It is, of course, a principle from which certain practices naturally flow — but it is in itself a principle, and not a set a practices.

A further point to notice is that this principle, this doctrine, is concerned with one matter only. A big matter, it is true, but a clearly defined one: the matter of the right relationship between man and the animals.

What it says in effect is this: it says that the relationship generally accepted by the world at large is a very imperfect one. It says in effect that we shall not do away with the many wrongs done to animals, nor shall we do away with the harm which results to the soul of man, until we alter that relationship.

It is necessary, therefore, to look at the present relationship between man and the animals and to ask what is wrong with it.

What is wrong, according to veganism, may be summarised into one word: exploitation.

If we look clearly and simply at this relationship we can see that it is almost entirely — not quite, but almost entirely — based from man's side of the fence upon the idea that he has a moral right to use animals for his own purposes.

Again, if we look clearly at this question of relationship, we can also see that broadly speaking there are two ways in which we may regard the animals: (1) as creatures to exploit; (2) as creatures to love.

If we want to understand veganism, if we want to assess its value, we are bound to examine at least briefly these two broad views of the relationship between man and the animals.

First, let us look at the majority view, the view that animals are here for our use, and that we have a moral right to use them for our own ends, provided that we reduce hardship and suffering to the minimum compatible with what we require of them.

This view is held by the majority of people quite automatically. For example, farmers talk quite casually about "growing more bacon," just as you or I might talk about "growing more cabbages."

Again, the majority view is that we have the moral right to use animals for labour. To the majority view there is no fundamental questioning of our right to harness horses, bullocks, camels, and so on, and make them work to our orders and our requirements.