|
Doug from California wrote in comment today:
Thank you for your reply/counter. You're certainly correct that we don't come out on precisely the same page regarding the "line" on abuse and use. Nothing startling about that; it's a premise of the article I wrote. I will, however, specifically disagree with you that using animals as food is inherently cruel. In fact, by your own following line, it is in the manner of death and the quality of life before that is involved with the cruelty. Stated another way, to put the potato on the fork (country thing, don't try to figure it out...:) I distinguish killing from torture; and I do not think the former for food by itself is wrong, the latter is. Similarly, I don't think milking a cow, as you apparently are willing to do, is wrong if the cow is decently treated. You are probably right, and the evidence I guess is pretty overwhelming, that some "factory farm" practices are abhorrent. That should be changed. Naive? Perhaps, but I hope not futile. The concern I have, as you see from the article, is that staking out positions in the name of "animal rights" that challenge the morality of people that want to eat a duck sometimes or other animal "users" (whether that be working with a carriage horse, playing with a dog) is 1) dismissive of animals' capacity for reciprocal affection/loyalty and 2) so alienating to so many that the cause will flutter hopelessly with respect to serious, actually achievable reforms. That would certainly include improvements in food production (probably possible only, I agree with you, with reductions in demand such as by patronizing what you sometimes call "mom and pop" farmers - start there?) and education or when that fails merciless punishment of, for example, punks of whatever age or gender that torture/kick animals for laughs. Doug from the Gold Country, California
.
Reply: Thank you in kind, Doug, for your prompt and thoughtful response.
.
First, allow me to address those things we appear to agree on.
.
I agree that, "staking out positions in the name of 'animal rights' that challenge the morality of people that want to eat a duck sometimes or other animal users" is to put it succinctly, a mistake. Unless deemed "immoral" by recognized law or religion, most people don't react well to being called "evil," "immoral" or being lectured to, regardless of the particular behavior. On the contrary, attempts at "guilt tripping" tend to mostly result in rebellious actions and/or self-fulfilling prophecy that reject the so-called "moral" premise being sought. (Example, teenagers and young people rebelling from "wag of the finger" moral authority of parents or even society in general.)
.
Morality, except where dictated by actual law or religious/cultural beliefs is a very individual phenomenon that we all arrive to in our own ways and according to our individual consciousness and experiences. It's generally not something that can be dictated to or forced upon us.
.
That said, I believe we need to consider present day realities, particularly as regards the most prevalent "use" of animals for "food."
.
Truth is, that we are a long way from Little House on the Prairie scenarios of a family living on their own land with a barnyard of chickens, a cow or a pig that they raise, milk and kill for their own survival needs.
.
One would, for example, be hard pressed to find anything of the "reciprocal" nature that has been so discussed (with relationship to humans' positive connections and interactions with dogs, cats and horses) on the typical factory farm. Put simply as matter of logistics and practicality, it would be impossible for the owner of a facility that holds 50,000 chickens or 300 pigs or cows to "emotionally connect" with his/her animals or care significantly about their individual welfare. Animals on factory farms are numbers, not names. If an animal becomes ill or in a cow's case, incapable of producing milk or offspring, they are either left to die in the pile or shipped off to slaughter. Everything is predicated on the theory of "maximum sustained yield" for profitability and not on animal welfare.
.
Of course, today, as people become more aware of how their food is actually produced (and in the case of meat, cruelly treated and slaughtered) and hopefully weigh these realities within their own consciousness and personal convictions of what is right and wrong, (not just in terms of animal treatment, but also environmental and personal health) there are many options from which to choose as have been lightly discussed.
.
In 1978 for example, when I was transitioning to vegetarianism, there were no vegetarian "meats," "free-range eggs or dairy," or the huge array of plant foods that are widely available today. If eating out, there were rarely if ever, vegetarian options on menus other than salads or french fries.
.
But, today it is comparatively easy to experiment with or transition to vegetarianism or even veganism with little in the way of actual "sacrifice" or personal hardship. Supermarkets, specialty stores and most restaurants now contain bountiful supplies of delicious, nutritious, exciting and inventive alternatives to the old and typical "meat and potatoes" diet.
.
Put simply, it doesn't have to be that way anymore.
.
Unfortunately, I am compelled to agree with you that many of the tactics, campaigns or "marketing tools" of the current Animal Rights leaders and movement are sadly misplaced and misdirected.
.
Restrictive, condescending or even tyrannical moral platitudes are tiresome and boring -- especially in a generally more liberal culture that clearly rejects old moral judgments of pre-marital or gay sex being "wrong" or even abortion. People (especially, Americans) generally don't like being told how to live, what to do or how to act, much less, what to eat.
.
It seems it would be far wiser to adapt some of the tactics and marketing tools of, let's say, the exercise and running industries.
.
Its hard to imagine the CEO's of Nike or Road Runner's Clubs calling people lazy slobs or "immoral" if not choosing to run or saying to someone who can only run a block, "Don't call yourself a runner unless you're able to run a marathon!" (e.g. "Don't call yourself Animal Rights unless you're a vegan.")
.
The Animal Right movement has, in many ways, dug itself into a hole. Instead of looking for common ground and encouraging and welcoming people of diverse backgrounds, skill sets and even lifestyles under the "big tent" so to speak of Animal Rights, it rejects all who not in the same exact place and along the same exact path of recognition and acceptance of Animal Rights. It shuns discourse and tends to "ban" from web pages those who in any way, disagree or challenge pre-conceived notions and platitudes.
.
Such is to ultimately alienate many who would, otherwise be on one's side if given a little time, patience, latitude and ironically, "compassion."
.
True and eventual achievement of Animal Rights can and will only come as does victory in a marathon. It is not to condemn the person who can or will only run one block, but rather to encourage him/her to run one more. It is to say, "Just move -- we are beside you to catch if you fall."
.
Truth is, Animal Rights will not be achieved by civil war or revolution. Its actual path is through evolution and the awakening of connection, consciousness and interaction with our fellow animal species.
.
I thank you for your willingness to engage in positive, if not always totally "agreeable" discourse. -- PCA
.
.
.
************
No comments:
Post a Comment