To be clear, there are no sustainable arguments for veganism based on a human rights position, an environmental position or an animal welfare position. But if we take animal rights seriously, and if we take veganism seriously as the baseline practice of animal rights, then the logical consequence is for us to take the environment, the rights of other humans and the well-being of nonhuman animals much more seriously than we do today.
Nothing's a panacea, of course, and veganism as a (misused) shorthand for a 'plant-based diet' doesn't mean much either way to any of these positions. But veganism as way of acting/living/etc. that puts nonviolence and the respect for the rights of others front and center to our moral judgement, to our ways of acting and to our broader social relations opens the door for us to do a great deal of good for and/or less harm to other humans, for the environment and definitely for other nonhuman animals. Allow me to explain.
First, the animal rights position take the rights of animals (all animals) not to be used as property seriously. To promote 'human rights' by promoting the rights of human beings not to be treated as property is in no way inimical. Gary Francione has an excellent piece on this. However, if we go back to the cosmopolitan positions of some of the Roman Stoics, we've had a sense of 'human rights' almost as long as Western history. And yet about 6 and a half million children die from malnutrition-related causes every year according to the U.N. Why? Perhaps it's in part because when we talk about 'human rights', it still too often functions as a shorthand for protecting our own privileges, or the privileges of a jet set elite to do global business unfettered, not the rights of everyone capable of feeling pain, suffering or being exploited to be thought of as more than a statistic. Taking the rights of nonhumans seriously does not preclude us from promoting human rights; in fact, the promotion of animal rights is literally the promotion of human rights.
Second, taking the environment seriously and taking the environment seriously because we take our duties to respect the personhood of other animals seriously is in no way mutually exclusive. As I'll argue in a forthcoming blog, the strongest, firmest and clearest position on environmental protection starts with believing that the environment is more than just a tool for exclusively human use. Almost 40 years now after the first Earth Day and the coral reefs, the ancient redwoods and the Brazillian rainforest, not to mention all the less popular but equally amazing ecosystems are still under threat from unnecessary development and profiteering. More important, we're even closer to the brink of what may be environmental catastrophe without a solution in sight. Why? Perhaps it's in part because we still consider the environment largely to be a tool exclusively for human use. Taking the rights of nonhumans seriously does not preclude us from taking the environment seriously; in fact, it compels us logically to do so.
Finally, if we care about the well-being of nonhuman animals, then their property status, and the cultural prejudices that sustain and are sustained by it, is the single most powerful impediment to doing anything meaningful to ensure their well-being. Today, anyone could kidnap, and skin my cat Julius, use him for food, or an art project. The penalty? Typically, a six-month sentence at most, but probably probation. Why? Because Julius is property under the law, not a person; and primarily because someone harmed my property, not because they harmed a person who likes to rub his forehead against mine and bite my toes in the kitchen when he's not getting enough attention. If everyone took animal rights seriously, Julius' personhood (the prerequisite to any meaningful understanding of his well-being) would be much, much safer and there would be a wider social acceptance of the moral need for nonviolence towards animals.
None of this means that we shouldn't take the environment, human rights and animal well-being seriously. Indeed, we should, and we should all work for change. But we should also ask seriously why these 'movements' by themselves haven't delivered more meaningful change than they have. And if taking a firm stand on environmental protection, on human rights and on the well-being of nonhuman animals is excluded by an animal rights position but, indeed, the logical consequence of taking a strong animal rights position, what's stopping you from doing taking the rights of animals seriously and going vegan? Why aren't you an abolitionist vegan already?
In spite of our good intentions, these positions often serve as shorthands for 'telling ourselves everything we need to hear in order to convince ourselves that we don't have to give nonhuman animals moral consideration.' I understand; I haven't always been vegan. I made excuses. I was uncertain. I was confused and worried. Where was I going to get toothpaste? How was I going to tell my coworkers? At one point, we were all afraid to take animals seriously and go vegan. I didn't want to be the preacher at the party, knitted brows and finger wagging. But I also wanted to do what was right. Thinking about the cows that die for hamburgers, the pigs who die for bacon, the dolphins, elephants and zebras who entertain us at circuses and zoos, the dogs bred to guard and fight, owning our individual roles in all of the enormity of what we have done to them, and summoning the courage in ourselves to say 'no' rather than being silent, to say 'yesterday, but not today!', to turn our backs on that history of our selves is daunting.
But we must do it. And when we do, the world changes unmistakably for the better for ourselves and for everyone else. It may only change in remarkably tiny ways, but the glaciers were formed by one drop of water at at time. Being complicit in a system of slavery is a cross that none of us, not one of us, needs to bear. Today is unquestionably the best day in human history for you cast that burden off.
So, if you want to take animals, the environment or humans beings more seriously, or, even better, if you take justice, equality and sustainabilitiy per se more seriously, then an animal rights position is the grand umbrella for you get under. Forget about the supposed difficulties. Veganism is easy and simple: no animal unnecessary animal products that it is possible and pratical for you to avoid. Forget about what the neighbours are going to think. Veganism and animal rights are logically consistent, rational, compassionate and easy to explain. Forget about half-measures and fussing around with riding the fence. If you take these things seriously, and I believe you do, then take them seriously enough to bind them all together into a political position and set of practices that allows you to act on all of them simultaneously rather than piecemeal.
In short, if you care about the environment, if you take human rights seriously, if you care about the well-being of nonhuman animals, then right now, today, you should take the rights of nonhumans not to be used as property seriously and go vegan. I believe in your ability to change yourself and the world, and you should, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment