“They are not slaves”: What is vegan abolitionism
The question of animal rights and whether it is permissible to eat them, is still hot. Even among people who eat meat, there are different opinions: different cultures disagree about which animals can be raised for food and which ones can be kept as companions. For example, in North Vietnam, you can see fried dogs on the market stalls, and Peruians consider it a delicacy of guinea pigs. People who eat animals that are considered domesticated in their culture are often considered acceptable because there is no personal relationship between them: “I didn’t know this rabbit and didn’t feel for it.”
Vegetarians solve for themselves an ethical problem, completely removing the meat from the diet. However, in this case, there remain a lot of controversial moments and situations when people harm other species - for example, supporting the production of cosmetics tested on animals, or buying products in plastic packaging, which can cause the death of mammals, fish and birds. Vegans refuse to use any animal products, be it meat, leather or fur, or honey. The list of prohibited products includes, for example, photographic film, which may include animal-derived gelatin. From it also make capsules for drugs, it is used in the printing and textile industry. Even buying shoes made of leatherette, you can find there unethical glue.
Logic dictates that in order to be consistent in moral attitudes, one should go further and not just give up meat, but think through absolutely all actions. We understand how far you can go in the protection of animal rights, being a part of civilization, and whether it looks like an attempt to catch up with all the time the receding horizon.
Liberation Movement
Vegan abolitionism is a radical environmental ideology that suggests that veganism is just an ethical minimum (which, however, members of the movement consider mandatory for all people). The main and global goal of abolitionists is to completely free animals from property status. They believe that animals have rights, as well as humans, and most importantly of these rights - not to be subjected to exploitation and not to be a commodity. That is why the name of ideology refers to the movement for the liberation of slaves, and the position of animals kept in cages is trained and killed, compared to slavery or genocide.
Keeping animals at home as pets in this coordinate system is a way of exploitation. On the objection that the owners can treat the animal well, the abolitionists respond that the oppression does not disappear from this — after all, even the “good” owner has the right to give the animal to the shelter or decide to put the pet to sleep. At the same time, participants in the movement note that it is possible and necessary to help animals that have already found themselves in a difficult situation due to the actions of people - for example, take a cat home from a shelter or a street dog, spaying them so that possible offspring will not be a victim of human violence. By the way, some feed animals living in their home vegan food based on vegetable proteins - on the Internet you can find many instructions on how to transfer cats and dogs to vegan food.
Can animal products be "humane"? Abolitionists are sure that this is an oxymoron
Abolitionists condemn all kinds of “harm reduction programs” for other species - they consider them a “compromise” solution that not only does not eliminate the problem, but also normalizes exploitation. One of the main subjects of their criticism is the so-called velferism, promoting the improvement of how animals are treated and their position. Many manufacturers of animal products use slogans about the humane treatment of animals - for example, they talk about "free keeping" and "painless killing methods." But can animal products be "humane"? Abolitionists are sure that this is an oxymoron, because we are still talking about captivity and murder. Another concept, Geartorianism, is used to denote a situation where, instead of completely abandoning animal products, they are encouraged to use less. But vegan abolitionism suggests that you cannot take support from non-vegans (which supporters of Geartureism are).
Abolitionists criticize specishism, or species chauvinism, - discrimination on a species basis. Speciesism is equated to other forms of discrimination based on biological differences - for example, sexism and racism. Antispasticism insists that all sentient beings deserve equal treatment. At the same time, another manifestation of specishism is called the protection of only the cutest animals, say, seals or pandas, while less touching animals are hardly mentioned.
Theory and practice
One of the most famous ideologists of animal liberation is the American jurist Gary Frances, who developed his theory of the rights of living beings. It is not based on the cognitive abilities of different types, but on the ability to feel, to experience. One of his books is called “Animals as Personalities”. Frances criticizes the Welfare movements, which include the famous PETA - she, he says, does not care about the complete liberation of animals. “Although rape occurs with appalling frequency, we are not campaigning for“ humane ”rape. Child abuse can be compared to an epidemic, but we are not in favor of making it“ humane. ”Slave labor is used in many countries, and millions of people are in slavery - but we are not in favor of “humane” slavery. But when the conversation about animals comes, many advocates of their rights come forward and promote “humane” and “happy” exploitation, "he notes.
He regards the way people perceive the position of pets, which is very ambiguous: on the one hand, people recognize their right to individuality and even their character, and on the other, they continue to treat them as private property, not subjects.
The term "specishism" belongs to the psychologist Richard Ryder, who first used it in the seventies, saying that people deprive animals of those rights that they themselves have. The rider calls the shesishchism harmful and inhuman prejudice associated with chauvinistic beliefs: "Racists violate the principle of equality, giving more weight to those who are like them if a conflict of interests arises. Sexists put the interests of their gender in the first place. Speshisty believe that the interests of their kind prevail over others. The model is the same in all cases. " Ryder also used another concept, peynizm, to emphasize that all living creatures capable of experiencing pain deserve recognition of their rights.
Another theorist of the animal rights movement, the philosopher Peter Singer, also compares the animal rights movement with human rights activities in human society: the emancipation of women and African Americans, the protection of LGBT rights. Singer belongs to the program for the vegan ethics work "Liberation of animals. New ethics of our treatment of animals." Singer adheres to ethical utilitarianism, which considers benefit as the main criterion of morality, and notes that some differences in the rights of species are permissible. He believes that in some situations the suffering of animals may be less human, and therefore it is first necessary to reduce more suffering - and as an example compares the suffering of a person dying from cancer (and aware of it), and a laboratory mouse in the same situation. . Nevertheless, Singer stresses that the main reason for recognizing the rights of animals should be their ability to feel, not their reason. As an example, he cites human-like monkeys that form complex relationships and can be smarter than two-year-old human children.
"Rights without obligation"
The ideology of vegan abolitionism has many critics. Some of them consider it incorrect to equate espionism with racism and sexism: according to the opponents of such an approach, the struggle for equality between people has a much greater moral and social significance, which the struggle for animal rights will never have. American lawyer Richard Pozner opposes that the equality of the rights of people and animals was imposed on society: "The inadmissibility of the legal inequality of people among themselves is much more explored, and philosophical thought follows these facts - if such facts appear in relation to animals, ethical standards in their attitude too will change. "
According to the philosopher Roger Scruton, only people can take on responsibilities and be members of society. Legal rights may belong to a citizen, a member of society, and come bundled with duties: in other words, citizens of a lawful state can rely on the protection of life and health, but will be accountable to the law if they themselves violate the rights of other members of society. Another philosopher, Karl Cohen, points out that "only in a community of beings capable of self-limiting moral judgments can the concept of law function correctly." The very idea of duties, like the idea of rights, is a product of the social, specifically human sphere of life.
No species of animals defends the interests of others, as abolitionist vegans demand from people.
It is not obvious to all researchers of the question, on what grounds do animal rights defenders equate different species to each other and why their desires must be morally equivalent. The same Peter Singer emphasizes that only higher animals with a central nervous system can be considered as personalities. Plants, fungi, microorganisms are overboard of legal protection, although it is known that they have the property of irritability, that is, they react to environmental factors, tend to "strive for well-being" and "avoid trouble": plants turn to light, bacteria react to chemical signals. All these living forms are reproduced independently, without human participation, and, from this point of view, cannot belong to it, just like animals. This raises many questions about exactly which living beings can be subjects of law and where to draw the line.
Another argument against is that no species of animals defends the interests of others, as vegan abolitionists demand from people. On the contrary, in nature interspecific "conflicts" are extremely common - they build food chains and balance the ecosystem. Since the time of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, there is the concept of "social contract", which keeps people from the state of "war of all against all." Animals in their natural environment are just in a state of such a war - is it possible to talk about equality and rights if some animals destroy others and fight for survival, competing, who will better adapt to the environment?
In addition, it should be noted that the general rejection of meat and all animal products implies a complete change in the economy and our civilization. And the matter is not in the fear of change, but in the fact that the project of completely non-violent methods of production, covering the needs of all people on the planet, has not yet existed.
"Are we smart enough"
Both vegan abolitionists and critics of the legal approach to animals agree on one thing: man, unlike other species, does not obey biological laws alone. But what does this mean for our relationships with other species? According to one point of view, a person is stronger than other living beings, therefore he must promote the welfare and safety of neighbors on the planet. According to another, intelligence and technology are our form of adaptation and we are entitled to use them to flourish our own species.
Frans de Waal in the book "Are we smart enough to judge the mind of animals?" indicates that for a long time we did not have the tools to correctly evaluate the experiences of animals. It was assumed that an intelligent animal is one that acts as a human, whereas in reality animals acted within their fitness and could simply not be interested in the tasks that people offered them. Animals, which were considered primitive for a long time, are much more interesting and more complex than it seemed: for example, most of the octopus's neurons are located in tentacles that “think” on their own - this is what the work of Sai Montgomery "The soul of an octopus tells: Secrets of consciousness of an amazing creature" it remains only to guess what it is.
One thing is indisputable: modern ethics must keep abreast of neuroscience, philosophy of consciousness, and other sciences that shed light on how consciousness of living beings is arranged. Some mistakes of civilization are connected with the imperfection of our optics: we know not so much about ourselves and other species as we thought, and are capable of causing great harm to other species.
Photo: Felix - stock.adobe.com (1, 2, 3)
