1140:
It’s terrible for me, writing
about the issue of ‘not using animals for human convenience’, because it seems
I’m attacking almost everyone, not just the meat eaters and milk-drinkers but vegans
too, who buy meat for their companion animals. Just about everybody is an animal-user/abuser
in some way. And that makes it difficult
for any of them to support the ‘no-use’ principle. The difficulty comes when we try to justify our
own positions, when in theory our maxim is not to hurt, but we can’t live up to
it in practice .
But let’s bite the bullet. Look at the people who keep animals as
companions. Some are rescued, and that
is surely far better than patronising a pet shop. But they all have to be fed and since most
normally eat meat, it’s down to the human to acquire it. And to do that we have to sanction the killing
of animals to feed our home animals. They must have the meat we believe they need,
to survive and be healthy.
But food aside, what about
freedom? This is Nature’s gift to all
sentient beings, freedom to move about. Now,
however well loved our home animals are, most of them are given no freedom to
move about as their nature dictates. For
them there’s no natural life. They are the
property of a human, owned as ‘pets’, and treated like playthings. Or bodyguards. They’re mostly socially isolated, mostly neutered,
micro chipped, medicated and fed old ‘kill’, a poor substitute for real dog food
or cat food. Mostly out of a tin, their food is predominantly meat and
therefore always at the expense of their fellow animals, down on the farm.
So whether we eat animals
ourselves or feed ‘animals’ to dogs and cats, most of us are making use of
animals. Some much more than others! The problem here, as I see it, is that we aren’t
ready to take seriously a ‘no-use’ principle yet. We only subscribe to the watered down version
- use less.
Some (but very few) don’t
give their animals any meat. And
anything missing from their diet (cats particularly) is made up with a specially
prepared plant-based supplement, that provides essential nutrients. By accommodating a companion animal we’re
responsible for their health and the quality of their life. But at the same time we are responsible for
the animal population in general, none being more important than the other. And therefore, symbiosis between human and
animal might be achieved, but not by one providing the other with food taken
from such places as abattoirs.
Most people haven’t thought
about their own use-of-meat let alone their pets’. Those who are caring for a meat-eating animal are feeding a carnivore at the expense of harmless,
non-carnivorous animals. Symbolic or
what!
By writing this, I’m probably
sounding offensive, especially if you have meat-eating animals at home. Perhaps you’re doing some really great work to
help other animals, as part of a plan to liberate them. That way you try to make the equation morally
balanced. But the question goes deeper.
Most animal rights groups are
doing brave work on behalf of the worst abused animals, the factory farmed poultry
and pigs. Most animal rights groups have
potentially offend-able members, who might withdraw their funds if the group becomes
too radical. I’m suggesting ‘too much’ would
be ‘abolition’ - bringing something wrong to an end. So we might want something to end
(animal-killing) but we also want people to change their attitudes to
animals. To grasp the idea that it’s the
untrustworthiness of humans that is noticed whenever they’re around animals. Humans can’t leave animals alone - they see
dollars or some other advantage in their eyes. Animals are suggestive of good times (cuddling
them, eating them, getting them to do work for us). But the good times come at the expense of some
bad times, which can not be justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment