Let’s Keep The Peace: Don’t Talk About Animal Rights.
Print This Post
During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the case for “bracketing a controversial moral question (i.e., slavery) for the sake of political agreement,” according to political philosopher Michael J. Sandel, was made by Stephen Douglas.
Sandel argues that whatever his personal moral views, Douglas claimed that, for political purposes at least, he was agnostic on the question of slavery; he did not care whether slavery was “voted up or voted down.” Lincoln’s reply was monumental in its moral significance:
It is only reasonable, Lincoln argued, to bracket the question of the morality of slavery on the assumption that it was not the moral evil he regarded it to be. Any man can advocate political neutrality, Lincoln continued, “who does not see a wrong in it; because no man can logically say he doesn’t care whether a [moral] wrong is voted up or voted down.”
Douglas’s political conception of justice (e.g., neutrality on difficult moral questions) depended for its plausibility, as Sandel writes, on a particular answer to the substantive moral question it sought to bracket (i.e., slavery). Lincoln rejected Douglas’s answer to this moral question, instead arguing that political (or moral) neutrality on the issue of slavery, even for the sake of the Union, was morally reprehensible.
Those who believe that the issue of animal exploitation is a substantive moral question, similar in kind to that of slavery, sexism, economic injustice, genocide, etc. argue that as the abolitionists of the past threatened the very stability of the Union by their beliefs and actions, they are willing to do things considered improper or impolite, lacking in tact, overly aggressive – things that indeed may challenge the very stability of their personal relationships, social status, or job opportunities. Indeed, in a perfect world all organizations that profit from the torture of animals would be relics of the past (would this include P.E.T.A. ?), like the plantations of the South.
For example, when I broach the question of the rights of animals in my conversations with others, the most frequent reply is Libertarian in nature: “You (Alex) live your life as you wish, I respect that, and I will live my life as I wish and you should respect that as well – be neutral and I will too.” Or “You have no right to force your beliefs on me.” If the issue is rightfully pressed, hostility is common.
Consider the assumption being made in both responses. Quoting Lincoln, in part: “It is only reasonable…to bracket the question of the morality of [animal exploitation] on the assumption that it is not the moral evil that it is.” [emphasis added]
To advocate neutrality in response to my questioning the morality of eating meat, for example, assumes that my negative answer to the substantive moral question of “Is the exploitation of animals moral?”, is wrong and that the non-vegan’s positive answer is correct or more plausible. As Lincoln argued, “Any man can advocate political neutrality…who does not see a wrong in it.” You are positing a belief, and one cannot simply assume the soundness of that belief. Critical analysis is a necessary requirement to move from the realm of prejudice or “tradition” to a position grounded in reason and logic.
As Lincoln could not logically (or morally) bracket the substantive moral issue of slavery for the sake of political agreement, nor can I logically bracket the substantive moral issue of how individuals relate to nonhumans for the sake of agreement, or peace in my relationships with others.
Considered another way, John Stuart Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’ has been succinctly articulated with this simple maxim: “Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins.” I believe this maxim appeals to a moral truth that is applicable in our dealings with nonhumans.
If you eat an animal your behavior is what Mill called other regarding: to do what you want to do necessarily requires the invasion of another individuals physical integrity in a most fundamental way (e.g., an animal’s life is taken for your consumption). These actions cannot be explained away by an appeal to neutrality: you are harming another individual, which requires a justification. The right to have your desires satisfied, if it necessarily involves “other regarding” behavior, ends where the basic rights of other individuals begin.
One cannot bracket the substantive moral issue of “other regarding” behavior for the sake of dispute resolution, nor can I logically (or morally) say that I don’t care if it’s “voted up or down,” metaphorically speaking.
Lincoln once said, “I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.” I couldn’t agree more.
—
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
Well said – I’ve encountered many omnivores who will argue that their eating meat is just a matter of dietary choice – morality plays no part in their decisions. I’m asked to be a “good vegan” and “respect” their choices…. Excuse me? The unnecessary slaughter of innocent beings for “taste”? and they want to be absolved with my blessings for their “right to choose”? Can we say that the pedophile might also request the same understanding in their “choice” to molest/rape a child? The wrong and the harm is obvious in both situations – And should both be met with equal distain, disgust and disapproval.
By the way, there’s even a Food For Thought podcast that addresses this subject. It’s called “Minding The Gate Keepers” and the description is this:
You can listen to it here:
http://cdn2.libsyn.com/compassionatecooks/minding_the_gatekeepers.mp3?nvb=20080614023702&nva=20080615023702&t=0735d4105d0afb9f46574
My take on this personal choice excuse meat-eaters grab at. Why do so many vegans adopt their logic? Because it is a popular vein of thought – peer pressure and it’s an easier way for them to live. Silent vegans are traitors like Al Gore. I say to them – It is not a “personal choice” when you are eating my friends and you ruining my world. My tax money subsidizes your “personal choice”. When you made your “personal choice”, did you ask the animal if you could confine him/her, torture him/her, and murder him/her? No, it is not your “personal choice”. It is a choice you make many times a day that infringes on many others, but it is in no way “personal”. When you made your “personal choice”, did you ask me if I mind all your pollution and devastation? Just because we personally (selfishly at times) make choices does not make them “personal choices”.
Meat-eaters and many vegans believe, “Warwak is giving vegetarians and vegans a bad name” – What a joke. Vegetarians already have a bad name. I do not give in to peer pressure or name calling. Do they really believe I will change my message for their friendship? I don’t want to be friends with these same people. This is the oldest trick in the book. Attack the person, not the problem. These same people believe vegans should be seen but not be heard, after all, we might break their consciousness while they are eating. They fight to stay disconnected at all costs – even their own children’s lives. I SAY THEY GIVE THE HUMAN RACE A BAD NAME!
It is obvious we need to be honest with children so they may make their own decisions about their own lives.
Meat-eating society doesn’t want children to think of such things. It is every vegans duty to tell children the truth – today. Children are the transmission of society. They are right in front of us. The future is here within reach. Problem is, vegans are afraid to be honest with children.
Why wouldn’t you? Yes you will get the meat-eating world mad; but, isn’t it the right thing to do? Aren’t you mad the meat and dairy industries go after children in schools?
If peer pressure rules your actions, you are not your own person. Children appreciate having a choice – especially when it is a peaceful, loving, and compassionate choice. Tell a child the truth and you will have a friend for life. Think about how grateful you are to those who turned you on to veganism.
YES, children prefer life over death, peace over war, and a clean world over a polluted one. If you just try telling one child the truth, you will find it is a beautiful experience and you will want to tell more. In the past year of talking with children about veganism, not once did I argue about biology, evolution, or religion. When discussing veganism with adults, nearly every single time, it turned into an argument.
Children love animals. Children are naturally curious. Children are still based in reality. Children are all about change. Children are still in touch with their hearts. Once the ball gets rolling in their world, change will happen. They talk amongst themselves and are rebellious by nature. News spreads through neighborhoods. The future has a way of arriving unannounced. The adults have proven they will fight change and do not want to teach our children a different way.
Children have a way for starting trends. I wish adults could change the world; however, this fight to save the animals and Earth belongs to the children. Children have a way of getting their way. Children are the transmission of society. If only they knew it. If only adults would tell them. It is up to vegans everywhere to start telling children the truth. If we do not, the meat-eaters will continue their legacy of suppression.
Telling children the truth today is the only way change will happen in the future
If you don’t want to bother or you are afraid of the adults, don’t complain in 10 years how brainwashed people are and how impossible this whole thing is. If every vegan was honest with children right now, this would be a better world in 5-10 years
Stop believing their favorite lie that got them this far. Truth is, it’s not a personal choice when you are ruining my world and eating my friends. This vegan is not afraid of telling the truth and has the clear-headedness to see a workable solution.
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them” Einstein
The moon cries in loneliness as today’s child chooses to stay inside glued to an electronic box, compartmentalized inside a temperature controlled facade, instead of going out in to the world, exploring caves, swimming with turtles, discovering nature’s beauty and perfection, caring a broken wing, feeding fish, finding real friends, friends who help the child as much or more than the other
Warwak, I think you’re right when you said, “It is up to vegans everywhere to start telling children the truth.”
I went vegetarian at six years old because I learned the truth about where meat comes from and no one lied to me or told me I had to eat it or else. I had a vegetarian teacher who was honest with me about it – not mean, not scary, not weird, not defensive, just honest. And when I announced that I was going vegetarian my wonderful mother didn’t suppress my urges. Instead, she considered them carefully and adopted vegetarianism herself!
My husband was first exposed to veganism when he met his mother’s friend at a potluck. Think it was the vegan food that piqued his curiosity? Nope. It was the nonleather baseball glove! He wondered why his mother’s friend’s baseball glove was different than all the rest and his mother was honest with him. Even though she’s not vegetarian or vegan and she does not believe in animal rights, she believes in being honest with children. (She’s a professor after all, so she ought to value honesty!) She explained that this man used a nonleather glove because he didn’t want to hurt animals. She gave her friend and his values the respect they deserved and she gave her son the honesty he deserved. Years later, my husband recalls that moment as his first introduction to veganism. When he made the switch to veganism as an adult, he was much more accepting of it because he hadn’t been taught lies about it earlier in life.
I think it’s critical that vegans reach out to children to introduce veganism to them. It doesn’t take much, just a nonleather baseball glove or a short explanation that meat comes from dead animals. Children are naturally compassionate. All we have to do is foster that compassion.
“Not only at Fox River Grove Middle School but also in thousands of schools across the country, corporate agribusiness has run amok in the attempt to utilize public education as a place to establish the naturalization of commercial meat and dairy as lifelong eating habits, to generate increased sales, to subsidize the food industry against decreased producer prices, as well as to funnel below-health standards food not fit for public sale. Warwak was correct to demand the riddance of the Dairy Council’s posters as they had in fact already been targeted for removal from approximately 105,000 public schools by the Federal Trade Commission.” Richard Kahn PhD, University of North Dakota
http://freire.mcgill.ca/files/kahn-epistemologiesofignorance.pdf
http://veganschool101.blogspot.com
~ Recent blog post: Obama A Vegan Socialist? ~
It’s interesting to run across this a year to the day! Of course everything said then holds true now – The “normalacy” of eating meat as opposed to the “radical” idea of not. All of it is held together with such a thin verneer of lies. I do believe as time passes these myths will be exposed for what they are. EV – thanks for a great year of dedication towards that goal.
~ Recent blog post: SWINE * BACON * PIG * PORK * FLU IS A PANDEMIC ~
Being, myself vegan I agree with your argument wholly, and am also too often faced with hostility in response to advocating Animal Rights’ in any way. As I was reading this article, I though I may have had a moral epiphany regarding the invasion of another individual’s physical integrity to satisify one’s own desires. However, I shortly realised that such a moral argument would not withstand an omnivour’s desire to consume animals, as such a person ( ususall du to lack of ducation on the subject)rarely considers a an animal as “another individual”. They will most likely appoint a lesser status to the animal, arguibly because of its’ lacking a consciounce/awareness/self.
This of course could be countered with the argument of speciesm, but that is another discussion all together.
However, as I was reading this article I
Sorry for the gramatical mistakes and obvious lack of editing in my previous comment. I’m at school working in a hurry and with missing keys, :S Hip Hip Hooray for public education!