Wednesday 16 January 2013

Eating/using animals is not a "personal choice".


Many people say that choosing to eat/consume animal products, or choosing to abstain from them (veganism) is a personal choice. But what do we really mean by “personal choice”? In this context, it would infer that engaging in animal use (or not) is inconsequential and simply comes down to a matter of personal preference. As in if you enjoy it, you participate, if you do not enjoy it, you don’t. Just like listening to a certain genre of music, or playing a certain sport. “To each their own”. This appears to be a common opinion on the matter and is often used as a reason to dismiss the issue without giving it proper thought.

Everything we do in life, every decision we make and every action we take, is of course ultimately personal choice. Nobody else makes our choices or acts for us, we are responsible for everything we do. Accepting this, instead of using the term “personal choice” to refer to all of our choices and actions in life, we generally reserve it for issues where the outcome only affects ourselves, i.e choices with consequences that are personal to us. The music we listen to, the books we read, the hairstyle we choose, are all matters of personal preference that are pretty inconsequential to anyone else. In that regard, we can define them as “personal choices”.

But what about choices that do have consequences for others? Actions that do affect their lives in more than just trivial or minute ways? What about when choosing to do something results in serious harm or injustice against someone else? What about when there is a victim involved? In that instance, the choice can really no longer be defined as “personal” as such. It becomes a moral issue.