They’re mere animals

633: 

“I’m not a fussy eater. I eat anything”, says the omnivore, deliberately misunderstanding the issue. “Why fix something that ‘ain’t broke’? Why fiddle with habits if we’re quite happy with the habits we have?”

In the mind of the modern man or woman, maybe there’s a small but nagging worry that something’s not quite right. But if it were wrong, if something were ‘broke’, you’d think you’d hear about it? Animals. How can it possibly matter, to stop eating or using them, when everybody throughout the world is making use of animals for food and clothing? Perhaps it’s possible that it’s not a contempt for animals that’s in question here, but that we’ve already given up on the human race; it’s within the common acceptance that humans are naturally violent and naturally uncaring of other species.

And anyway, we generally compartmentalise what we do, so that food shopping and how we think about animals are separate matters.

When we reach for that favourite food item on the supermarket shelf we take it on trust, that it is safe, legal and ethical. But do we hear a voice inside us questioning how we are choosing? We know that once we’ve grabbed it and dropped it in our basket we’ve already as good as consumed it, so we have to decide there and then whether to reach for it or not. If we decide NOT to, then we’re starting to connect two separate concerns, even to the detriment of our own convenience. Instead of blindly doing what others do we are starting to think out the ethics of our choices, for our self.

Maybe we do consider boycotting a food item, for whatever reason; we’re perhaps deciding to do without it, or finding a alternative. It’s a very personal matter. It’s a private decision we have to deal with for our self, since we can’t discuss it with anyone else unless they also consider boycotting on ethical grounds.

If we try to discuss this matter with someone who hasn’t yet begun to question the ethics of their food, then we open up a potential battlefront, which will show up the difference in each person’s values. For instance, those of us who boycott all animal products on ethical grounds, if we compare our way of thinking with someone’s unquestioning approach, we open up an ego confrontation. It’s as if we are suggesting ‘me better than you’, or ‘me more compassionate than you’.

If we start to think that we are a more advanced person, by virtue of our being more empathetic, it looks as if others are seen by us as primitive and insensitive. This is not how most omnivores see themselves. They know they are empathetic, as evidenced by their kind disposition towards their children or by the way they treat their dogs and cats at home. So, immediately there’s a difference in perception.

They see us as delusional and hypersensitive to the feelings of mere farm animals. Their perception of ‘mere animals’ sums up the problem here, based on the belief that one needn’t question matters which are almost irrelevant.