On the pervasive misanthropy in the Animal Rights movement
Humans are Creative, Compassionate, Capable: The Responsibility of Human Exceptionalism
Within the animal rights movement, there’s a pervasive misanthropy — a belief that humans are the problem. If the virus-like humans were limited the rest of the species would live in perfect peace.
That is the very same “Appeal to Nature” that some use to justify eating animals. That is to say, with nature being defined as non-human, or not human-caused, an action is deemed good because it is natural (non-human caused) – so if eating meat is common in non-humans, it is good. That is a fallacy.
Far from being the problem, humans are the potential solution.
Humans are special. Humans are Exceptional. We possess unique traits — creativity, compassion, and capability.
I do not doubt that non-humans possess creativity and compassion. The breadth of innate creativity and compassion felt by non-humans may even surpass that innate in humans.
However, non-humans, through no fault of their own, are forever limited, physically, psychologically, socially, and more, in their capability to intervene in the lives of others to the degree that humans can.
A non-human furry family friend may even fully comprehend the terminal illness of their human family member, yet is severely limited in their capability to intervene. However, if the situation is reversed, the capability of humans to intervene in the non-human’s life to prevent suffering and even potentially cure their illness is unmatched.
So human and non-human compassion can and does extend beyond our one kind.
Yes, humans inflict a great deal of needless suffering on others. Non-humans do too, however, we do not grant moral agency to non-humans.
Unbelievably, this was not always the case. Animals were once tried and faced the death penalty if found “guilty”. They were hung or strangled, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial
Consider the most basic medical interventions such as wound care, the development and production of suffering-preventing and life-saving vaccines, to genome editing using CRISPR/Cas9 technology to treat painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell disease (SCD). These interventions are only possible due to our collective global human community. No other species comes close to humans in terms of these capabilities.
However, it is the possession of unique traits — creativity, compassion, and capability — that impose a profound ethical responsibility upon us.
Humans evolved a desire for the taste of animal flesh, rich in minerals and amino acids, which aided our ancestors’ survival without any knowledge of these nutrients. However, this preference is distinct from our physical need to consume these essential nutrients.
We now have a clear understanding of what specific essential vitamins, minerals, and amino acids the human body needs to survive and thrive:
“[Animal-free] diets are healthy and nutritionally adequate… appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle.” — Australian Government’s Dietary Guidelines.
We can comprehend the suffering involved in breeding and killing animals for consumption — the suffering of both the victim and perpetrator.
The victims — the Animals — suffer.
The perpetrators — the Slaughterhouse workers — suffer.
It was found that Slaughterhouse workers (SHWs) have a higher prevalence rate of mental health issues, in particular depression and anxiety, in addition to violence-supportive attitudes. Furthermore, the workers employ a variety of both adaptive and maladaptive strategies to cope with the workplace environment and associated stressors. Finally, there is some evidence that slaughterhouse work is associated with increased crime levels. The research reviewed has shown a link between slaughterhouse work and antisocial behavior generally and sexual offending specifically.
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
If you can survive without eating animals, you should do so.
