Emily asked: "Why do so many people only care about the issues of one oppressed group, instead of all of them?"
There is a simple answer to this question. To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc. I do have to question, however, whether "speciesism" is a legitimate form of oppression that needs to be addressed.
Humans certainly have a preference for their (our) own species. This is, I think, morally justifiable. We, unlike every other species, have developed highly complex languages, social structures, tools, systems of knowledge, etc, etc, etc. We have tamed the earth, fought the elements, and against all odds, we have come to dominate the earth. We alone are rational beings, we alone are moral beings, we alone rule this planet. And we have not been entirely unjust to other species. Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?
Have we made mistakes? Naturally. We are only human. We are not gods (though we come closer to this status every day). But, we can improve. Just because we have done cruel things to the animals we eat does not mean we must therefore swear off meat entirely. We can change our systems, put tight regulations on the meat industry, and boycott the industry if they refuse to acquiesce. But should we fundamentally change our relationship with animals as masters? I think not.
To end with a question: Considering the relative fluidity of moral values, what is the purpose of trying to argue against meat from a moral perspective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc."
ReplyDeleteBut if all of these separate groups share the same oppressor, then they shouldn't be fighting separate battles.
"Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?"
ReplyDeleteMost companion animals may be relatively well off; but countless millions of other animals suffer as a direct consequence of the pet industry (in puppy mills, as strays, in shelters, as food for pets, in research labs, etc.).
"But if all of these separate groups share the same oppressor, then they shouldn't be fighting separate battles."
ReplyDeleteSeparate battles makes it more easy to concentrate resources onto one particular fight. Make progress, win there, move on to next battle. When you only have finite resources (and most of these civil rights fronts tend to be chronically low on resources), it's much more efficient to pick your battles one at a time, rather than all at once.
"Most companion animals may be relatively well off; but countless millions of other animals suffer as a direct consequence of the pet industry (in puppy mills, as strays, in shelters, as food for pets, in research labs, etc.)."
Again, I'm not suggesting that there isn't room for improvement. I'm simply stating that, overall, they aren't as bad off as some overzealous animal rights activists would suggest.
it has been said that the majority of slave owners treated their slaves fairly as well. what is the difference between a well treated slave and the working class of america? i struggle to find any outside of the illusion of freedom.
ReplyDeleteas long as people focus on the material form, whether it is any specific animal's rights, or animal rights in general or a specific human's rights or human rights in general, nothing significant will come out of it. as long as the attitude stays the same, the injustice will appear in another form in another place. in order for any change to gain momentum, the change must come from within (subjective). for the majority of my life i spent all my energy changing the world around me to benefit me. when i adjusted my attitude instead of trying to change the world around me, i developed the "midas touch" and i understand in the deepest dimensions of reality that the kingdom of heaven is within me. the ego is so deluding that if a person was disappointed a thousand times, they would still take the same path for they know no other.
i do not see an immorality in eating meat, but to condone the method in which our society obtains the meat is immoral.