Article 23. Ethics starts with Non-Violence

Apart from veganism being a great diet, it is also an ethical diet and has a double bonus in its non-violence principle. If we accuse someone of being violent because they eat meat, that accusation may be construed as a "violence" and for that reason alone we should avoid doing so. Any hint of confrontation, aggression or violence loses us the valuable opportunity to discuss things rationally. Once someone feels they’re being attacked, they’ll counter attack, and so on. The discussion will go round in circles and central arguments are lost. If we end up ‘shouting’ at people who disagree with us, they will simply walk away and their hostile attitude to animal rights will become even more entrenched. If we hurl abuse at meat eaters, we will always seem like ‘animal rightist nutters’, and they’ll always be suspicious of our hidden agenda. Maybe we want to subvert society by liberating all the animals???
There’s an enormous difference of opinion between the protectors of animals and the users of animals. Many of us who are animal (or environmental) activists have been involved for so long, that it’s possible we’ve forgotten how it felt when we accepted things the way they were, living as an integrated part of the mainstream community. All we know is how it feels to be part of a minority and to be shut out of discussing these matters so dear to our heart. We also know that ‘our subject’ is unlike any other subject. Our interest isn’t like a hobby or something we are casual about. It’s a matter of life and death for us, of righting perhaps the most terrible wrong ever known to our society. This is not an attitude with which we can agree to disagree. It’s a view that many of us feel must be argued strongly over, so that we can drive our central point home - that animal slavery has got to end.
If we are abolitionists who think no animals should ever be used by humans, if we propose a total animal food ban, we might seem unbelievably radical and confronting. But that position isn’t violent, it is simply a matter of passionate promotion. It’s just as if we were selling soap powder, only unlike soap what we are selling is pivotal to future human development. In our eyes it is essential. However, we only need to hold that view, not necessarily force it down peoples’ throats every time we talk to them, or every time animals are mentioned. There is an appropriate time and place for our vegan voice.
This great gulf of perception between animal users and vegans does have a middle ground but it looks weak, compromised, convenient and hypocritical. The meat eater gives a bit. They might eat free range eggs or only drink organically fed cow’s milk, but essentially continue being indifferent towards animals. A non meat-eater might dabble with vegetarianism but still take care to avoid going too far, for fear of becoming too radicalised, or being too different from friends. For them leather shoes are okay, the same as wearing silk and wool or eating butter and eggs – “boycott them and you’ll go crazy”, they say. So, it’s the middle of the roaders, as distinct from the uninformed, who know enough but who are still unwilling to act and who (from our point of view) are ethically most at risk. We urgently need to make contact with them.
If vegans want to entice middle-ground people to disassociate from animal slavery altogether, they must act as guides rather than inquisitors, educators rather than judges. Vegans need to be informers of details. From what happens to animals down on the farm to the practicalities of applying vegan principles. It’s our job to allow anyone who wants to change, to take the initiative of changing themselves without their being shoved from behind by us.
In our society, we are encouraged not to know about animal issues. Factory farms, abattoirs and animal laboratories are closed to the public. But it’s unlikely the public are keen to visit them anyway because they are such ugly places. More importantly, it’s frightening to see how easily we kid ourselves. We reckon we can’t object to what we haven’t seen with our own eyes. We also reckon that if our educators thought we should know about all this, they’d have taught it at school. If we aren’t taught something then we reckon it’s probably not worth knowing about anyway. And if any of this warped logic doesn’t sway us, we can be sure that our own backup defence shield will swing into action, to act in our best interests. We know all too well that if we take on board issues concerning animals, we’ll be inconvenienced. One realisation would lead to another. For example, as soon as dairy products were implicated in the cruelty argument, everything made with milk would be ethically infected and our conscience would pressure us into avoiding dairy products altogether. That spells inconvenience big time. If vegans are left to say why they boycott dairy products, they will threaten our whole existence. If we let them show up our ethics we’ll feel compromised.
Imagine then what happens when the same arguments are applied to our wardrobes. Health arguments obviously don’t apply here. Leather shoes, for instance, are not "bad" for you, but they are hardly ethical items since they come from slaughterhouses just as meat does. Our most fashionable attire is often associated with the ugliness of abattoirs. Even vegetarians who still wear leather can’t justify it and that puts them in a difficult position. If we are compromised, we can’t hold (let alone promote) an animal rights position. And that is a problem for many people seeking liberation for animals.
Even though most of us would like to be known as a compassionate person, as soon as we consciously decide to buy something that is unethical, the game is up for us. It’s the same when we buy a ‘pet’ from a pet shop. It means another ‘pet’ will be bred to replace the sold one, so the cage is never empty. Whether first or second hand, whenever we buy an item made from animals, we create a vacuum for another item to be produced to take its place. To offset this is impossible. There are no carbon credits for animal use! Even when we think we’re being generous, in thinning out our shoe rack, we fall into the same trap. We give away a pair of shoes to someone who needs them: we leave a space on the rack which gives us an excuse to ‘go shopping’ for more.
The idea of "justified robbery", stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, may be considered ethical. Stealing from the poor to make the rich even richer, is never justifiable. In this way then, nor is stealing the life of a voiceless animal! This magnitude of thieving is no different to the exploitation of children or the desecration of a forest. It’s just that same old human habit - using our advantage to harm the harmless.