Monday, June 29, 2015

Big issues, perceived differently

1407:  

Vegans want to strike a blow for compassion.  We’re willing to deny ourselves lots of things for that.  We know where we stand on animal slavery (an opposite view to the majority) and we know why people don’t agree with us, because agreement logically leads one to ‘go vegan’, which to most people would be a scary idea.  And because of this, public attitude to animal slavery won’t change.  If you want to eat animals you can hardly show any interest in their welfare, since you are about to be their executioner.

The difference in our levels of concern cause vegans and non-vegans to part company.  And often it’s the reason we can’t sympathise with our omnivore friends who, apart from food items, are also buying clothing and other commodities that are animal-based or animal-tested. And again, there's great cruelty involved, be it in the production of milk, wool, leather or medicines. - always, consideration for the animal itself is of little concern to those making money from them. or indeed from the consumer who is benefitting from them.

When we try to discuss this subject with people we, not surprisingly, find that they prefer we didn’t.   And while we may think they’re just being obstinate, they think we’re just spoiling for a fight.

By getting caught up in an argument about using-animals, the omnivore thinks we want to cause them embarrassment.  They feel cornered.  They're on the defensive.  If we bring up the subject, how do we ensure  things won’t turn nasty?  On the one hand, you can’t blame a vegan for ‘speaking up’, on the other hand, you can’t blame the omnivore for thinking we want to spoil their dinner.
         
It’s a trap for all concerned.  For example, I visit someone’s house and food is offered, out of natural hospitality.  I refuse it and have to provide my reason.  Either the matter is brushed under the carpet or something is said in an attempt to appease.  It’s likely, each party underestimates the strength of opinion of the other.  In declaring myself to be vegan, I have no idea how offensive I’m being, as if I’m condemning what’s being offered.  In declaring themselves to be omnivore, they have no idea how they might seem to me, to be lacking moral fibre, for not making a stand against animal cruelty.
         
The problem is that, as vegans, we think deeply about something that non-vegans hardly ever think about.  Obviously the world is a very wicked place today, but there are so many conscience-pricking issues. Who can say which are most important issues to make a stand about?  How bad is air travel on our carbon footprint?  How obscene is a full stomach in a hungry world?
         

At the first whiff of negative value judgement, people usually dig their heels in and refuse to change.  No one likes to be criticised.  So, when someone is avoiding a vegan, out of a fear of confrontation, the vegan notices this, and wants to push forward with their arguments, assert themselves, force things, even hit back in some way.  And that’s surely one of the reasons why we seem to be getting nowhere in trying to talk to omnivores.  Because omnivores view animals as commodities, especially when they are turned into slabs of meat for cooking, they don't give this food any ethical consideration; it’s easy for them NOT to connect this food with a living, breathing, walking animal.  And it's of no interest to be reminded that it once was, just that.  In fact, we represent such a small minority view that they know we can't sound athoritative. They have the numbers, we don't. If we push, we'll be seen as being anything from vegan bores to vegan Nazis.

No comments: