I’ve been receiving a fairly typical response lately during my conversations with non-vegans about ethics and nonhumans, and it’s rather curious I think.
As I try to defend the philosophy of animal rights I believe it’s necessary to challenge those unstated assumptions that we all make about the “naturalness” of the species hierarchy or our domination of the world and all its nonhuman inhabitance. Why must we insist on our own supremacy, and even assuming human supremacy, how can that be used to justify torturing bunny rabbits during nicotine addiction tests, for example?
From this point, a conversation can be started about certain premises we all generally hold, the most prominent being the deeply held belief that unnecessary suffering is something that ought to be avoided. Or more simply, pain is intrinsically evil and ought to be reduced to the greatest extent possible. From this, of course, it follows that all suffering should be counted as morally important unless we are able to come up with a reason or a sound principle that justifies our belief that X’s interest in not suffering counts, but Y’s similar interests, even though the suffering occurs to a similar (perhaps greater) degree and intensity, doesn’t matter. Further, following this line of reasoning, aren’t those who argue that the sexist who refuses to consider the interests of women in his moral deliberations because women belong to a different - “naturally inferior” - group is morally abhorrent and totally irrational, being equally irrational when they tacitly accept the premise of the speciesist who argues from within this same prejudicial framework to justify eating meat?
Now on to the response that I have been receiving lately: “Alex,” I’m told, “attacking people who eat meat is not a good way to make your point.” Automatically I’m struck by this, as anyone would be: Attacking? From my position, I’m simply having a conversation about why our justifications for eating meat rests on flawed premises and erroneous assumption, which then lead to invalid conclusions. Therefore, “attacking” is absurd on its face, almost nonsensical, from my position.
But now I understand the impetus - mere defensiveness.
Our society has progressed (Kind of?) beyond our inherited traditional prejudices and mores that relegate black American’s to a position of inferiority, for example. Therefore, if confronted with a racist today, I would, as I do with speciesists, question some of their assumptions and ask them to articulate their own premises, etc. As is often the case, we don’t even realize that we believe certain things; they go unstated, left unaddressed and therefore assumed. A conversation, then, should aim to uncover and challenge the unsaid to see if they survive the light of day. I would hardly label this discourse an “attack.” I think most would agree.
Most, not all, because of course there are those who actually believe in racism and are therefore tied to those beliefs, explicit or implied. They have a stake in the outcome, so a defensive posture is almost inevitable. And we recognize this: it’s the most prominent hurdle we have to overcome to eliminate these prejudices. And I recognize now that this is what compels the erroneous statement “Alex, attacking people who eat meat is not a good way to make your point.”
Even those making this claim know, intuitively, that I’m not attacking them in some fallacious ad hominem way. I’m addressing their own premises, as they would do to the homophobe or hate monger. But, like the sexist, the speciesist is locked into a very specific and all-encompassing viewpoint - a monster of a paradigm that reaches into every aspect of our lives. I mean we almost mystify what we eat; it has taken on the characteristic of a value-statement; it’s representative of who we are to some degree. Enter the defensive posture and the misguided attacks on me for challenging assertions that vegans are extreme, wrongheaded, etc., as if killing a mink for his skin and fur (because it’s fashionable) isn’t “extreme” and just downright inhuman.
With this understanding I’ve realized the power of reasoning by analogy. “Would you call X, Y, and Z, during a conversation with an ardent bigot, an attack?” “If not, why is this conversation about animal ethics any different?” We can challenge that most prominent implied assumption underlying this predictable response: “Because they’re animals and we are humans.” Just as we challenge this assumption when aimed at women: “Because they’re women and we are men.” It all seems to be the same logical (and ethical) framework.
So, to end, I’m not attacking you or “pitting you against vegans and vegetarians,” anymore than I pit non-sexists against sexists. It’s called a conversation. It simply make’s you, as it did me, feel uncomfortable.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
