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.
Nutritional and economic factors aside, most people in richer nations who are free to do so make their food/fashion/entertainment/product choices based on their personal preferences-their taste. Taste is individual and everyone has differing preferences. That’s fine, but what about when the “food”/"clothing" someone consumes is actually someone else’s dead body? Or the by-product of torture and slavery? What if the form of entertainment someone engages in involves the confinement and exploitation of someone else? There is a severe disconnect between the animal products we label “food”/"clothing"/"entertainment"/"resources" and the actual living beings said “products” came from.
Non-human animals (for humans are animals too of course) are sentient. Like ourselves they have conscious awareness, can feel pain, have the capacity to suffer, experience emotions, possess unique personalities, have interests and their own personal preferences. They are “non-human persons”. In order to get animal products like meat, dairy, eggs, leather, wool, fur etc or use animals for other purposes, we must exploit these persons and engage in violence against them. If we want to use their bodies, it becomes necessary to take their freedom and lives from them. The personal choice of the animal not to be used is overlooked. Overpowered, their bodies are taken by force. Immense suffering and the violation of each individual’s personhood is unavoidable. When using animals and consuming animal products, our “personal choice” to eat a particular tasting product, wear a particular item of clothing, watch a particular form of entertainment (e.g circuses, marine parks, rodeos, bullfighting, zoos), engage in a certain “sport” (e.g fox hunting, horse/dog racing, dog fighting) or use a particular cosmetic/household product, results in the violation, exploitation, torture and murder of another person. They become our helpless victims. That being the case, it is not accurate to describe the use of animals/the consumption of animal products, or abstaining from this (veganism) as a “personal choice”. It is a moral issue and needs to be treated as such.
Humans are in a privileged position of power over other animals. Nobody has a choice about being born into a certain privilege, but anyone who is has the power to oppress or exploit others. Every man has the power to exert physical force over a woman, every adult has the power to exert physical force over a child, just as every human has the power to exert physical force (one way or another) over other animals.
When we consume animal products, we are not simply making an innocuous choice of personal preference, we are making the choice to dominate and overpower someone weaker than ourselves with physical force. We are making the choice to overlook their personhood, claim that their life has no moral value and take it from them. We objectify them, as if their body is simply a resource to be used and their existence merely a means to our own ends. It is the choice to participate in violence, to exploit and kill a vulnerable person. To overlook the choices, needs and desires of that person and unjustly force ours upon them, in spite of the harm this causes them. We do not need to do so, unlike lions or crocodiles we are not obligate carnivores and we certainly don’t need to wear animal skin or use animals as test subjects or forms of entertainment-we have better alternatives to all of these-we do so simply because we enjoy it and simply because we can. But might does not make right. Just because we can overpower someone and use them against their will, does not give us the right to do so.
Humans of course have been violently exerting power over one another for a long time in the form of slavery, torture, rape, abuse and murder. We are aware of the suffering this causes however and in modern civilised society we generally agree that these unjust acts of violence are totally unacceptable (immoral), and they are outlawed. We recognise that each individual exercises agency when they decide whether or not to engage in such acts, but we absolutely do not regard doing so as a mere matter of personal preference. An enjoyment of, or personal gain from such acts is not moral justification for committing them.We try to prevent such things from happening and protect potential victims.What we fail to observe however, is that we are each committing these atrocious acts on a daily basis when we consume animal products. While someone who directly engages in an act of physical violence against someone else (such as rape, torture, abuse etc) may well have the intention to dominate, cause suffering, harm or deny freedom or life; most people who consume animal products do not have such an intention (and are most likely actually against such things). But the reality is, the consequences are just as violent, horrific, harmful and unjust to the victim involved.There is a serious mental disconnect between consuming a finished product and the non-human person who was exploited, tortured and killed behind closed doors in order to make it.
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.
Nutritional and economic factors aside, most people in richer nations who are free to do so make their food/fashion/entertainment/product choices based on their personal preferences-their taste. Taste is individual and everyone has differing preferences. That’s fine, but what about when the “food”/"clothing" someone consumes is actually someone else’s dead body? Or the by-product of torture and slavery? What if the form of entertainment someone engages in involves the confinement and exploitation of someone else? There is a severe disconnect between the animal products we label “food”/"clothing"/"entertainment"/"resources" and the actual living beings said “products” came from.
Non-human animals (for humans are animals too of course) are sentient. Like ourselves they have conscious awareness, can feel pain, have the capacity to suffer, experience emotions, possess unique personalities, have interests and their own personal preferences. They are “non-human persons”. In order to get animal products like meat, dairy, eggs, leather, wool, fur etc or use animals for other purposes, we must exploit these persons and engage in violence against them. If we want to use their bodies, it becomes necessary to take their freedom and lives from them. The personal choice of the animal not to be used is overlooked. Overpowered, their bodies are taken by force. Immense suffering and the violation of each individual’s personhood is unavoidable. When using animals and consuming animal products, our “personal choice” to eat a particular tasting product, wear a particular item of clothing, watch a particular form of entertainment (e.g circuses, marine parks, rodeos, bullfighting, zoos), engage in a certain “sport” (e.g fox hunting, horse/dog racing, dog fighting) or use a particular cosmetic/household product, results in the violation, exploitation, torture and murder of another person. They become our helpless victims. That being the case, it is not accurate to describe the use of animals/the consumption of animal products, or abstaining from this (veganism) as a “personal choice”. It is a moral issue and needs to be treated as such.
Humans are in a privileged position of power over other animals. Nobody has a choice about being born into a certain privilege, but anyone who is has the power to oppress or exploit others. Every man has the power to exert physical force over a woman, every adult has the power to exert physical force over a child, just as every human has the power to exert physical force (one way or another) over other animals.
When we consume animal products, we are not simply making an innocuous choice of personal preference, we are making the choice to dominate and overpower someone weaker than ourselves with physical force. We are making the choice to overlook their personhood, claim that their life has no moral value and take it from them. We objectify them, as if their body is simply a resource to be used and their existence merely a means to our own ends. It is the choice to participate in violence, to exploit and kill a vulnerable person. To overlook the choices, needs and desires of that person and unjustly force ours upon them, in spite of the harm this causes them. We do not need to do so, unlike lions or crocodiles we are not obligate carnivores and we certainly don’t need to wear animal skin or use animals as test subjects or forms of entertainment-we have better alternatives to all of these-we do so simply because we enjoy it and simply because we can. But might does not make right. Just because we can overpower someone and use them against their will, does not give us the right to do so.
Humans of course have been violently exerting power over one another for a long time in the form of slavery, torture, rape, abuse and murder. We are aware of the suffering this causes however and in modern civilised society we generally agree that these unjust acts of violence are totally unacceptable (immoral), and they are outlawed. We recognise that each individual exercises agency when they decide whether or not to engage in such acts, but we absolutely do not regard doing so as a mere matter of personal preference. An enjoyment of, or personal gain from such acts is not moral justification for committing them.We try to prevent such things from happening and protect potential victims.What we fail to observe however, is that we are each committing these atrocious acts on a daily basis when we consume animal products. While someone who directly engages in an act of physical violence against someone else (such as rape, torture, abuse etc) may well have the intention to dominate, cause suffering, harm or deny freedom or life; most people who consume animal products do not have such an intention (and are most likely actually against such things). But the reality is, the consequences are just as violent, horrific, harmful and unjust to the victim involved.There is a serious mental disconnect between consuming a finished product and the non-human person who was exploited, tortured and killed behind closed doors in order to make it.
Most of us were raised engaging in the exploitation of
non-human animals before we were old enough to understand what it means to do
so. It becomes an ingrained and unquestioned habit that we never actually gave
any serious thought to. At what point did we each make the choice to engage in
horrific violence against other animals? Very few of us actually did. But now
more and more of us are investigating the consequences of our actions and questioning
our choices. Many of us are seeing that exploitation and violence against
non-human sentient persons is unnecessary and morally unjustifiable, just as it is morally
unjustifiable to commit such acts against other humans and recognising that in our agency comes responsibility. Many of us are
choosing to no longer engage in violence against others and live vegan. What
choice will you make?
No comments:
Post a Comment