Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

The Absurdity of Non-Vegans Picketing Animal Abuse

Like us on Facebook:

Non-vegans are the first to admonish others for the infliction of overtly gratuitous animal “cruelty.” Indeed, as in the case of a recent dog murder, they may even stand with pickets outside courthouses claiming that there’s “no excuse for animal abuse.”

The superficial nature of such moral protests are attributable to the blatant nature of the wrongdoing in question. When someone sticks a nail through a dogs head in a park, or cuts off a dog’s ears for the purpose of a selfie, the subsequent public outcry is an inevitable consequence of the accepted conventional wisdom that it’s always wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death. People recognise that our pleasure does not constitute an adequate justification for engaging in such behaviour. Indeed, many non-vegans who oppose the infliction of gratuitous suffering and death consider the perpetrators to be sadistic.

Why is it then that these very same non-vegans are unable to see the identical nature of their own animal exploitation when there is no compulsion whatsoever to consume animal products? Indeed, all evidence points to the consumption of animal products being detrimental to human health. The use of animals in their daily lives is every bit as unnecessary as the suffering and death they condemn and maintain there is “no excuse” for. So what gives?

In essence, they harbour a set of beliefs that are considered to be the default position for everyone living in modern society – animal welfare. This position is so entrenched that it is enshrined in our laws and legal systems. It is a position that accepts speciesism as legitimate and that perpetuates differential treatment amongst morally indistinguishable beings. Instead of recognising that all sentient beings (human and non) have fundamental interests in not suffering and continuing to live, and that they all possess inherent value giving rise to a fundamental right not to be used as a thing, as property, we instead deny the existence of such interests and moral value.

As per the animal welfare position, we are told that because animals are not sufficiently like us, they do not have an interest in continuing to live and so therefore we do no harm in depriving them of their lives. Even if this were the case (which it is not), we would still have to face our own conventional wisdom dictating that unnecessary suffering and death is wrong. As discussed before, there is no necessity or compulsion involved in animal exploitation. And this is where the tension between the public’s default welfarist thinking and their conventional wisdom clashes. They recognise that unnecessary suffering and death is wrong, yet have been taught to believe that their speciesism is justified in light of the supposed differences between humans and animals for the purpose of being used as resources. On a superficial level, they already reject the default welfarist thinking on account of their opposition to the infliction of gratuitous suffering and death involving fetishised animals. If they did not believe that animals had an interest in continuing to live, it would make no sense for them to get upset about a life being taken.

On a deeper level, however, on account of the assumptions made by animal welfare with respect to the value of animal life, a certain level of speciesist thinking kicks in and allows people to process the arbitrary lines we draw between different animals. We treat the fundamental interests of some animals different to others, and the welfarist paradigm offers a comfortable context in which to facilitate such thinking.

This is why we have hundreds of thousands of non-vegans signing a petitions looking to excoriate the perpetrators of obvious and gratuitious suffering and death without recognising the implications of that concern in their own lives. It is an incredibly superficial moral concern that is prevented from going deeper on account of welfarist assumptions that legitimise speciesism.

The issue is clear. If we combat animal welfare by educating the public about the need for abolition and the link between inherent value and moral rights, we suddenly bring peoples moral concern for animals into fruition. It is the welfarist assumptions held by society that inhibit peoples concern to go deeper than the most shallow of moral waters.

Dismantling animal welfare and the assumptions it propagates is the key to justice for animals and a vegan world. 

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • Casey

    Bullshit article, and writer! I eat me! Yet, rescue cats and dogs. I also help rescue wildlife. In addition to this, I believe all animals, even those that we eat, have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

    • Felicia Trigiani

      Casey, don’t you see that you are not treating someone with dignity or respect if you are KILLING them? Go vegan, and let your behaviours match your beliefs.

  • Lani

    Yes! Thank you. I walked past a fundraser the other day for an animal shelter that were selling pork sausages. I’m all for raising money but come on! Could they not see the hypocrisy?

Don’t blame vegans for the shame you feel about using animals

The shame Carly Lewis claims veganism casts over her is more likely the ghosts of moral uncertainty, spectres that are more likely fish than cows, wondering how morality can possibly be used as ammunition in favour of murder.

Beyoncé and Jay-Z sell out veganism for ticket giveaway

Veganism deserves better than constantly being considered something to be bribed, dared or loosely entered into.

Month one of “the year of the vegan”

News outlets are abuzz with the promise of new vegan products, celebs, and services and how that is somehow a fresh affirmation that our world is one turn closer to being fully free from animal use.