How the glorification of vegetarianism (and other single issue campaigns) is confusing the public about animal rights. Are the animal rights groups promoting exploitation?
It seems the media are reporting a rising trend in vegetarians returning to eating meat. Could the big animal groups be to blame?
Organisations such as Viva! and Animal Aid, claim to want to end all animal exploitation (the abolishment of animal use), but what are they actually promoting? Could their message to the pubic actually conflict with this goal?........
Why animal rights?
Non-human animals (for humans are in fact animals too) are sentient persons. That is they are conscious, feeling beings with individual personalities and their own set of needs and interests, much like ourselves. Non-human animals are used in their billions as food, clothing, entertainment and cheap research tools. This of course causes them immense suffering and in using them like this their inherent value as moral persons is ignored. We in fact have no need to use them, particularly for trivial reasons such as pleasure.
Human animals already have “rights”-they are protected from slavery, abuse/violence (e.g rape, molestation, torture etc) and discrimination (e.g racism, sexism, heterosexism etc). They have legal protection from being used as a resource for another, in spite of the any positive gains that could come from this-because their life is recognised as morally significant. When we use the term “animal rights”, it means affording non-human animals the same respect and protection that humans have in the aforementioned aspects-for non-human animals too have interests in avoiding harm and continuing to live. It is time we extended the beliefs we already hold as a society to include all sentient beings.
Animals as property
Chiefly this means bringing an end to the status of non-human animals as our property. When the law regards you as nothing more than the property of someone else, you have very little meaningful legal protection from harm. The rights of the property owner and their interests trump yours-effectively you are a slave. Currently almost anything-no matter how violent or how much suffering it involves-is legally allowed to be done to animals, as long as it serves a purpose (e.g training, efficient production). Among other things this includes castration without pain relief, insemination, the use of physical force/brutality, de-beaking without pain relief, tail docking without pain relief, tooth removal without pain relief, branding, whipping, confinement, feather removal, force feeding etc. Animal lives have no further legal value than that of a disposable commodity and they are treated as such.
Welfare regulation fails to protect animals precisely for said reasons. Only that which has the benefit of increasing production efficiency or making the public feel better about consuming animal products by appearing to reduce cruelty (increasing demand and therefore profits) is implemented. In reality it does very little, if anything, to improve the situation for animals suffering now and does nothing to remove them from the situation as property. In fact it serves to further engulf them in it.
It fits then that in order to achieve rights and meaningful protection for animals, their status as property must be challenged.
Why Vegan?
Animals are used and abused in greater numbers today and in more horrific ways than when the animal welfare movement started some 200 years ago. Regulation of their use has not proved a successful tactic in their protection or achievement of rights. Indeed to simply regulate their enslavement is akin to condoning it.
Becoming vegan primarily achieves three things:
1) As a practical matter it boycotts all forms of animal exploitation, effectively reducing the demand for animal products.
2) It recognises that non-human animals are sentient persons who deserve the right to be respected as such, by not being used as a resource.
3) Further to this it is a position that morally opposes speciesism - The notion that beings of other species besides ones own are inferior and can be discriminated against.
So, in order to work towards animal rights and set an example of respect towards non-human animals, it is logical that all animal rights groups and advocates adhere to and promote veganism as their moral baseline.
But what’s really going on?
Instead of sending a clear message that animals are sentient persons and their use cannot be morally justified, the biggest animal groups are promoting vegetarianism and other single issue campaigns including welfare regulation.
This is actually damaging and counter-productive in the struggle for animal rights.
The glorification of vegetarianism
All of the well-known animal groups have “Go Veggie” campaigns. You can read what Viva! write here:
Compelling reasons, but only part of the story. You’ll notice they cite going vegetarian as “the most effective single thing you can do” and “turning vegetarian means you’re no longer part of the cycle of death”. They reference how many animals are killed for meat and the suffering many of them endure on factory farms.
This glorification of vegetarianism is problematic and inaccurate in a number of ways.
This glorification of vegetarianism is problematic and inaccurate in a number of ways.
Firstly, it literally states the most effective single thing you can do is to abstain from meat. But why is this? What’s the difference between animals being exploited and killed for meat vs animals being exploited and killed for dairy, eggs, wool, fur, fox hunting or any other use? Only those who die for meat are mentioned. The audience will automatically assume that consuming meat is somehow worse or “more cruel” than consuming/using animals in any other context. Singling out one use like this suggests it is morally different and normalises the other uses, making them appear acceptable or “less bad”. With such praise for being vegetarian, why would anyone even consider looking into veganism?
Secondly it states “turning vegetarian means you’re no longer part of the cycle of death”. All animal property is disposed of when their level of production drops and they are replaced by a younger generation. All “spent” dairy cows and laying hens are slaughtered to become processed meat products, males calves of dairy cows become veal, and male chicks of egg laying hens are gassed or minced alive shortly after hatching. That is what it means to be valued only as a commodity. Your life ends when you cannot be used to make money in some way.
Vegetarians continue to consume other animal products besides meat. In fact their consumption of these other products often increases due to a lack of knowledge of plant based nutrition. This effectively means replacing one form of exploitation for another. Not helpful for animals and certainly not relinquishing one’s part in the cycle of death.
Thirdly there is an emphasis on the suffering involved in factory farming. Not all animal farming or all animal use-just factory farming. While it is true animals suffer horrifically as mass produced products, the inference here is that our moral concerns are towards how animals are treated when we use them, not whether it is right to use other sentient persons as chattel property. This implies that there is an acceptable way to do it.
The take home message here is that “eating meat is bad because it’s cruel; being a vegetarian is great and the best possible thing you can do to help animals.” Inaccurate, misleading and not furthering the case for animal rights.
Now let’s look at what Animal Aid promote.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/vegetarianism//2156//
Thirdly there is an emphasis on the suffering involved in factory farming. Not all animal farming or all animal use-just factory farming. While it is true animals suffer horrifically as mass produced products, the inference here is that our moral concerns are towards how animals are treated when we use them, not whether it is right to use other sentient persons as chattel property. This implies that there is an acceptable way to do it.
The take home message here is that “eating meat is bad because it’s cruel; being a vegetarian is great and the best possible thing you can do to help animals.” Inaccurate, misleading and not furthering the case for animal rights.
Now let’s look at what Animal Aid promote.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/vegetarianism//2156//
Animal Aid actually promotes “Meat Free Monday”. Instead of making a clear cut case for the recognition of animal’s moral personhood and our moral obligations towards them, this campaign asks for just a tiny reduction in exploitation. In other words, just exploit animals a little bit less (or exploit them in a different way by replacing the meat with eggs and dairy as most people will automatically do) for just one day a week.
Celebrity vegetarian spokesperson for Viva! Paul McCartney and family, have just released a cookbook also promoting meat-free Mondays. The recipes are full of animal products like cheese, eggs and crème fraiche. Further compromising their position towards animal exploitation, which to the public appears irrational and inconsistent.
Celebrity vegetarian spokesperson for Viva! Paul McCartney and family, have just released a cookbook also promoting meat-free Mondays. The recipes are full of animal products like cheese, eggs and crème fraiche. Further compromising their position towards animal exploitation, which to the public appears irrational and inconsistent.
Can you imagine if there was a human rights campaign called “rape free Monday”? Suggesting that on Mondays one takes a break from raping someone and just beats them instead. Put in a human context it is absurd, and any human rights group promoting it would not be taken seriously. This is surely a problematic approach for an animal rights group to take. If, in a human context, we would take an unequivocal stance when it comes to violence, abuse, slavery or discrimination, why is an animal rights group not willing to do the same for animals? (Is this not speciesist?). Should we not also be presenting a morally consistent stance to the public?
If you follow the link to the Meat Free Monday Animal Aid page you will see that animals are not even mentioned and only environmental reasons are cited (again to only mention meat here is still inaccurate and misleading when other animal products cause as many environmental problems). Quite odd on an animal rights page to not mention the victims they are trying to protect.
When you go to their “veggie and vegan” page, they ask people to go veggie or vegan, suggesting to the reader that either are morally valid positions. When the former is continuing to participate in (and effectively condoning) animal exploitation, the latter is about boycotting it. Quite a difference.
On top of this Animal Aid have several welfare regulation campaigns including the one trying to get CCTV installed in slaughterhouses and to reduce the amount of times a jockey can whip the horse they are racing.
The CCTV campaign comes after secret filming inside slaughterhouses revealed many workers were further abusing animals before killing them, including beating, anal violation, extinguishing cigarettes on them, and sawing the legs off live animals. Indeed very disturbing. It is unnecessary violence, but so is slaughtering animals to eat. Humans do not need to consume animal products for their health, it’s all injustice and horror for the sake of enjoyment. One would think the animal groups would be the first to point this parallel out. Instead, they only point out the additional suffering of the animals. Put in a human context this is akin to a human rights group campaigning for CCTV to ensure victims on their way to the gas chamber were not further abused before being killed.
While less suffering is of course desirable over more suffering, it misses the fundamental injustice of the situation-dramatically so. Not a position appropriate for said groups to take. By doing so, this in fact normalises the killing of animals for frivolous purposes (pleasure), only making out the additional harm as extreme and unacceptable. Again the impression is that it comes down to the way we treat animals, not whether or not we should be enslaving and killing them in the first place-(which is pretty extreme in my view! )
When you go to their “veggie and vegan” page, they ask people to go veggie or vegan, suggesting to the reader that either are morally valid positions. When the former is continuing to participate in (and effectively condoning) animal exploitation, the latter is about boycotting it. Quite a difference.
On top of this Animal Aid have several welfare regulation campaigns including the one trying to get CCTV installed in slaughterhouses and to reduce the amount of times a jockey can whip the horse they are racing.
The CCTV campaign comes after secret filming inside slaughterhouses revealed many workers were further abusing animals before killing them, including beating, anal violation, extinguishing cigarettes on them, and sawing the legs off live animals. Indeed very disturbing. It is unnecessary violence, but so is slaughtering animals to eat. Humans do not need to consume animal products for their health, it’s all injustice and horror for the sake of enjoyment. One would think the animal groups would be the first to point this parallel out. Instead, they only point out the additional suffering of the animals. Put in a human context this is akin to a human rights group campaigning for CCTV to ensure victims on their way to the gas chamber were not further abused before being killed.
While less suffering is of course desirable over more suffering, it misses the fundamental injustice of the situation-dramatically so. Not a position appropriate for said groups to take. By doing so, this in fact normalises the killing of animals for frivolous purposes (pleasure), only making out the additional harm as extreme and unacceptable. Again the impression is that it comes down to the way we treat animals, not whether or not we should be enslaving and killing them in the first place-(which is pretty extreme in my view! )
The campaign to reduce the amount of whipping that goes on in horse racing is much the same. In this instance it doesn’t challenge whether it is right to use animals for our entertainment, just regulating one aspect of it-inferring that such use of animals is acceptable (at least this is the impression the public are left with when such objections are made). It misses the point of what the morally problematic issue is here.
These campaigns themselves do nothing to promote veganism as a moral position.
These campaigns themselves do nothing to promote veganism as a moral position.
What message does this send?
The take home message here would appear to the casual observer to be along the lines of:
The take home message here would appear to the casual observer to be along the lines of:
“You don’t have to go vegan to help animals, just go vegetarian, that’s easier, or just have no meat on Mondays, that’s easier still. Or just give us a donation to absolve your responsibility. We’ll make animal use less cruel so you don’t have to give it up.”
People will always pick the path of least effort and do the least that you ask of them. By presenting other positions besides veganism as a seemingly morally valid option, it suggests that veganism is not really necessary and portrays it as extreme or difficult.
Is this really an effective message to come from an Animal Rights group? The moral baseline is constantly being moved, leaving the public confused. What is the heart of the issue?-Is it about the way animals are treated? Is it about how many animals we eat or which animal products we consume? Is it about the environment? Do I simply need to reduce the amount of meat I eat in order to feel good about myself or call myself an animal rights activist?
Why do this?
Why present these other (ineffective and hypocritical) positions at all? The groups claim that the prospect of going vegan can be intimidating and so providing the public with “baby steps” can make the transition easier. It is tactical. While I accept not everyone is going to go vegan overnight and may do so gradually, there is a vast difference in supporting them through this and promoting gradual steps as seemingly morally valid positions in and of themselves.
Why do this?
Why present these other (ineffective and hypocritical) positions at all? The groups claim that the prospect of going vegan can be intimidating and so providing the public with “baby steps” can make the transition easier. It is tactical. While I accept not everyone is going to go vegan overnight and may do so gradually, there is a vast difference in supporting them through this and promoting gradual steps as seemingly morally valid positions in and of themselves.
The groups claim that they have a clear message to go vegan and that “Meat Free Monday” and vegetarianism are merely temporary transitional steps. But this is not the message the public are receiving. The way they are presented, they do not appear to be transitional steps at all. In fact in persuading members of the public to go meat free on Mondays or go vegetarian, veganism is not even mentioned. After giving someone such high praise for taking one of these steps, most people never see a reason to move on from them. This is ineffective and one could even say a tad dishonest, when what they really want from you is to go vegan. (Why not just say that upfront explaining why this is necessary?). This is not promoting veganism.
Instead of directly promoting and glorifying these positions (which serves to side-line veganism and make it appear hard or extreme), the animal groups should ONLY be promoting veganism (and provide support in the transition towards it), the end of speciesism and the abolishment of animals as property.
Now compare their messages with something like this:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/ARAA_Pamphlet_A4.pdf
Or this:
http://veganfreaks.net/animalemancipation.pdf
Can you see the difference?
Going back to harming animals
When a clear moral baseline is not set, those who are moved into becoming vegetarian or even vegan can do so for the wrong reasons. That is, when the impression is that the reason for doing so it about cruelty, as soon as regulation legislation comes into effect appearing as though this has been reduced, many feel it is ok to go back to consuming animal products-because “it’s not cruel anymore”. Hence increasing reports of vegetarians going back to eating meat and vegans going back to all forms of exploitation. Individuals who, with the right message from the start, could have been vegan for life. This is a major failure of the animal rights groups who are at the forefront of representing animal interests (at least they’re supposed to be). Human rights groups do not oppose rape until it is made "more humane", they are clear that they oppose it because it is morally wrong.
The need for a clear moral baseline of veganism
Now compare their messages with something like this:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/ARAA_Pamphlet_A4.pdf
Or this:
http://veganfreaks.net/animalemancipation.pdf
Can you see the difference?
Going back to harming animals
When a clear moral baseline is not set, those who are moved into becoming vegetarian or even vegan can do so for the wrong reasons. That is, when the impression is that the reason for doing so it about cruelty, as soon as regulation legislation comes into effect appearing as though this has been reduced, many feel it is ok to go back to consuming animal products-because “it’s not cruel anymore”. Hence increasing reports of vegetarians going back to eating meat and vegans going back to all forms of exploitation. Individuals who, with the right message from the start, could have been vegan for life. This is a major failure of the animal rights groups who are at the forefront of representing animal interests (at least they’re supposed to be). Human rights groups do not oppose rape until it is made "more humane", they are clear that they oppose it because it is morally wrong.
The need for a clear moral baseline of veganism
There is no mention of animal personhood or respect for other sentient beings; ending the status property of animals; opposing speciesism; or that veganism is the very least that we need to do in order to end exploitation and what we owe to other animals if we take their interests seriously. This is a social justice issue of great magnitude-the core principles of which are being lost.
Accurate, clear and honest education is urgently needed for the public. For animal groups to conduct themselves in this way is not only hindering the movement with confusing and misleading messages, but is actually contributing to speciesism and the support of animal exploitation by engaging in welfare reform and promoting vegetarianism. Further engulfing animals in the property paradigm. The impact of which cannot be underestimated.
The situation is desperately critical. This is not an attack on the groups or anyone involved with them, I do not doubt the good intentions, sincerity and commitment of everyone involved. This is a genuine plea for a rational and thorough evaluation of the current tactics and techniques being used. Because what’s happening now is not right. We need to fix it.
The situation is desperately critical. This is not an attack on the groups or anyone involved with them, I do not doubt the good intentions, sincerity and commitment of everyone involved. This is a genuine plea for a rational and thorough evaluation of the current tactics and techniques being used. Because what’s happening now is not right. We need to fix it.
I had my testicles removed surgically (after an accident) and I can only shudder at the thought of having them cut off while conscious. Banding, and other methods appear no less painful.
ReplyDeleteI think the pain, for an animal, is just as intense as it would be for a man to go through the same thing. The only difference I can see might be that, once the pain has subsided, the animal might not remember it and feel the psychological pain of knowing it is somehow less male than it was intended to be.
Some people say that, because I had my "balls cut off", I over-identify with castrated animals. They might be right, but I still think we should empathize with animals and try to reduce their suffering.