Judgement and arson

As we swelter in a heatwave, the bush (as usual at this time of the year) is burning. Houses have been lost. It was on the news. No mention of the non-human inhabitants of the bush or the domesticated animals trapped behind fences. They say the current fires were deliberately lit. There’s public fury about this and much praise for the brave fire fighters, who risk their lives mainly to save property.
The main players on the stage though are the bystanders. Fire is ugly but so are the double standards of some of those who are morally outraged by this event. Their outrage is reserved for those who deliberately light fires. Most people feel safe to speak up about this. We are selective about what outrages us - we can afford to be loud on this one but quiet about other equally atrocious crimes.
It’s interesting what fire brings out in us. As an example of a common fury, fire and arson are ripe for judgement. It’s almost exciting to have a fire so we can have something topical to talk about, where we can feel safe to judge those responsible, who are often the types of people we most dislike anyway - arsonists in particular. We’re proud to feel strongly and speak up in defence of certain victims of the arsonist, fellow humans, but humans only.
In a hot dry country like Australia, where bush fires are common, there’s no one so detested as the arsonist. They’re often juveniles with pyromaniac tendencies who are neither in control of their own impulses nor aware of being judged. They’re probably seeking recognition through destruction and perhaps they don’t fully understand what risks they’re taking, by setting fires. They cause great suffering and many deaths, mostly tragically sentient animals not to mention plant life, not to mention threats to humans. When caught the community want them severely punished, to be judged by a professional judge.
At a trial every angle is covered, witness statements, motives, background, record, mental illness, even the arsonist’s relationship with their companion animals. A judgement is made and a sentence passed.
But amateurs want to be involved – each of us wants our opinion known. Our judgement is much clumsier than the trial judge’s – ours isn’t interested in details but on justifying our thirst for vengeance. Here’s a crime that anyone can get a safe handle on and speak strongly about; our own moral outrage feels healthiest when it concerns things like arson. What’s to argue about? … the saving of lives, the saving of property, the reckless threat against both, the heartbreak over the loss of non-human life. All that outrage is expressed at a time of fire. But for another equally horrendous crime there’s silence.

When something isn’t illegal, like the killing and eating of animals, the only thing to stop it is an animal activist, making a judgement. They’re coming from their own morally outraged position, this time against those who procure animal materials. This activist is intent on shaming them (and that includes just about everybody!). They take on this responsibility simply because there’s no one else to do it. There’s no professional judge or law to protect animals, not ‘food animals’ anyway. Activists use heavy judgement about this because no one else seems to be even vaguely disturbed by the crime.
But judgement still always fails. At first glance it seems okay to have formed a judgement in the form of a strong opinion (the public’s of the arsonist, the vegan’s of the meat eater) but judging isn’t as thorough as understanding; we make judgements without enough evidence, so they’re unsupportable. Nevertheless we make them - these are relatively safe judgements, they are safe ways of venting rage, in this case against the arsonist, for lighting fires. In the same way it’s easy for vegans to justify their judgements of meat eaters, for their willingness to let animals suffer to satisfy the palate.
The meat eater is the pyromaniac’s double. They each need urgent help to cure them of similar urges - to dominate, to violate and to do it all with not a care in the world. Our judging them won’t help. It won’t help them change and it won’t do our image as Animal Rights advocates much good either.