The abolitionist

788: 

We have a tricky subject here in Animal Rights because the subject can be seen from many different angles. The majority believe that we should eat them and enjoy eating them, use them, keep them as pets, wear their fur and hair and skin, etc. The minority think otherwise. Vegans, like me, think we should make no use of animals at all.

            Imagine the trouble some of us get into when we propose that eating meat and eating any by-product or wearing animal-fabric is not the only thing to stop doing; we should neither give in to the temptation to imprison companion animals in our homes nor condone the killing of other animals with which to feed them. No zoos, no animal circuses, no experimenting on animals, etc. It’s all just a logical extension to the much milder views that many vegetarians espouse - use some animals but with less cruelty.

            Those of us who might call ourselves ‘abolitionists’ feel that humans can never be trusted around animals, because humans have such a poor track record. We have always, and therefore probably will always, deny the sovereignty of animals. Those of us who believe this are not generally understood, let alone agreed with, but since we are so few in number no one feels the need to listen to us. We are thought to be hostile to the whole idea of animal-human relationship. And it follows therefore that we see that no good has come of it and that we are ungrateful types who don’t appreciate the great strides humans have made. It’s as if, so the logic goes, that we do not respect the legacy of human achievements from which we ourselves have benefitted.

            Our being so extremely far away, from the common perception of human-animal relations, we stand little chance of being heard or listened to. So, would it make more sense to soften our views? If we were less extreme we might be putting forward less indigestible views, as the ‘welfarist-vegetarians’ do, who don’t disapprove of some use of some animals. The welfare organisations usually can attract large numbers of subscribers, but the downside is that they water down the whole Animal Rights message. Their milder stand seems to let the vast majority of animal-abusers off the hook.

            So, what hope is there for the ‘abolitionist’?  Despite our watery colleagues, we still need to get the essential dis-enslavement message through.

            We, finding ourselves on the back foot, can only get people to listen to us by extraordinary feats of maturity; we must be impressing them, by being first and foremost okay-people. The onus is on us to show we are fair minded, that we are capable of learning and listening as well as sounding off. It’s to our credit if we are ready to admit being wrong if we are shown to be. And, most importantly, that we are self-controlled enough to handle whatever is thrown at us - to field insults without becoming aggressive in reply, since peace-lovers just don’t do that.

            In general, we don’t often find anyone able to intelligently debate issues from ‘the other side’ of the argument. It’s likely we can only expect crude responses to what we say.