They’re mere animals

“I’m omnivore. Why change?” Why fix something that ‘ain’t broke’? Why fiddle with habits if we’re quite happy with the habits we have? Maybe there’s a small but nagging worry that something’s not quite right, and perhaps we suspect something is broke. Maybe we believe there is no hope for the human race, that people in general are ‘broke’. It doesn’t occur to people that, to fix this we might all be better off being vegan.
Going vegan involves taking a huge punt, in order to become happier about ourselves, and that might come down to the amount of respect we have for the wonders we’ve inherited. Our self respect depends on trust, that we are not doing anything unauthorised, untrustworthy. When we reach for that favourite item on the supermarket shelf we take it on trust, that it is chemically safe, that’s it’s legal to buy it and that it’s an ethical item. Once we’ve grabbed it and dropped it in our basket we’ve already as good as consumed it, so we have to be sure before we buy. This is the moment of truth, of decision-making, and if in this moment we hear a voice inside us, telling us to “stop”, then what’s really happening to us? Perhaps we’re starting to think like a vegan?
At that point, where we’re considering a boycott or a purchase (of meat or eggs or whatever), if we hesitate, if we give it a second thought, we are at the cross roads of decision-making. We might decide to do without, or find a replacement, or to try something new. If so, something has already happened in our ‘new brain’ that’s different from our ‘old’ brain.
It’s a very personal matter. We can’t discuss it with anyone (at least, anyone who isn’t vegan) for obvious reasons. If they haven’t considered boycotting foods on ethical grounds they won’t appreciate discussing boycotts. That would almost be insulting, for ethics is close to having-brains here - doing the intelligent, sensitive, empathetic thing, or not. Discussing any side of this matter is fraught with complication. For a start, we open up a comparison; once we start comparing our decision with their default position of non-decision, then the intelligence behind our decision shows up thee lack of intelligence behind theirs ... we are comparing our vegan brain with their omnivore brain. It immediately becomes an ego battle - my brain better than yours, ‘me better than you’. It’s dangerous not only because we’re likely to be offending people but because our value judgement is a mine field; as soon as we start making personal comparisons everything from then on, by that other person, will be said defensively and self-protectingly.
To suggest our ‘wiring’ is different (between the vegan brain and the omnivore brain) suggests that one is advanced by their being empathetic and the other primitive by their being insensitive. But that’s not how most omnivores see themselves. Although a vegan feels empathy for innocent, sentient victims (‘domesticated animals’) omnivores (who eat certain animals) see themselves as remarkably empathetic and humanitarian, as evidenced by their relationship to their dogs and cats at home. It’s likely they see us as delusional and hypersensitive to the feelings of mere farm animals (who are bred to feel almost nothing). Facing off like this is pointless. There’s no end to it all. All we vegans can do in the light of their being so seriously ill-informed is to (incredulously) ask them to qualify whether they really do think of animals as ‘mere’.