10
QUESTIONS WE WISH YOU'D ASK ABOUT
ANIMAL RIGHTS
1. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "ANIMAL RIGHTS", AND WHICH "RIGHTS" EXACTLY ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
The main
claim of the animal rights movement is one so simple and logical that, in
principle, it is hard to find someone who would oppose it.
We believe that any living creature capable of suffering and possessing a
natural longing & need for freedom deserves the most basic, self-evident
birthrights: meaning, that his life and liberty shall not be taken from it,
and that no suffering will be deliberately inflicted upon it.
These are all such obvious rights that all of us - or at least the vast majority
of us - take them for granted today when it comes to ourselves and to human
beings in general. And yet we do not manage to truthfully recognize or respect
them in any other living creature except ourselves.
The animal rights movement sees this as an injustice, one that stems from
ignorance and/or selfishness - the very same causes which in the not-so-distant
past prevented us as a society from recognizing and respecting the similar
natural rights of black people and women, among others.
2. WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? DON'T PLANTS HAVE RIGHTS TOO?
When
we speak of "animal rights", we are of course working within the
assumption that there is a clear, universally accepted line separating animal
life from plant life.
The most relevant difference between the two is naturally the fact that plants
do not have neither nervous systems (as well as brains), and are therefore
not capable of experiencing pain (the feeling of pain is understood to be
a self-defense mechanism: when we come in contact with something dangerous,
pain steps in and teaches us to avoid it in the future. Plants can never move
nor avoid things, hence they would have no need for such a mechanism).
Given the fact that it is therefore possible to obtain our food from bushes,
plants and trees without causing them “pain”, and sometimes even
without killing or harming them, it seems most logical (from an ethical point
of view, but also from ecological and health viewpoints) to base our lives
on vegetarian diets instead of on food that unquestionably inflicts pain and
death.
Furthermore, even if we were to take plants' "pain" and "right
to live" into consideration, keeping a strict vegetarian diet would still
be preferable, because feeding immense quantities of plants to fatten up animals
and then eating those animals inflicts considerably more destruction and death
for both plants and animals.
3. HOW CAN YOU OBJECT TO THE USE OF ANIMALS WHEN IT IS SOMETHING THAT MAN HAS DONE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME?
Until
about 150 years ago, the institution of slavery had accompanied mankind since
the dawn of time as a phenomenon no less natural than eating or using other
animals. The belief that women are inferior to men was too, until less than
a hundred years ago, a solid cornerstone of human thought.
Those who challenged these norms in the past were considered (much like animal
rights activists are considered today) "extremist" and ridiculous
people, who object to the very natural order of things in the world. However,
humanity evolves, as well as its' ethics, and most of us are gradually reaching
an understanding of the fact that if a certain idea or custom dates back to
ancient times, this is not necessarily a testament to its' righteousness or
validity. Indeed, one could argue that the exact opposite is more correct...
4. YOU CAN LIVE HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT, BUT WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO PREACH AND TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO AND NOT TO DO?
Anyone
can believe that animals were created to spend their entire lives in crowded
cages, just like they can believe minorities exist solely to be slaves or
homosexuality should be punished by death. However, a person's right to believe
whatever he or she wants does not necessarily entitle him or her the right
to act on these beliefs.
Non-human animals' right to live, to be free and escape deliberate suffering
is not a matter of "opinion" or "personal choice" from
our part, just like our own right to live, be free and avoid deliberate suffering
is not dependant on the "opinions" and "personal choices"
of those around us. Similarly to our attitude towards humans, our freedoms
regarding non-human animals should end where their own freedom begins.
By its' very nature, every advancement in the social arena occurs thanks to
people who "preach" and "tell others what to do and not to
do": not to enslave others, not to force children to work, not to sexually
harass women etc. And all the protest movements that have voiced these aforementioned
"demands" were originally met - much like the animal rights movement
- with a hostile resistance from those who wished to preserve their "right"
to continue committing these wrongs.
5. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS?
Animal
welfare organizations acknowledge the suffering of animals and work to minimalize
it through a call to more "humane" methods of exploitation, but
unlike us their official goal as a movement is not the complete abolition
of the exploitation and killing of non-human animals.
While animal welfare organizations acknowledge that animals do have rights,
they are still based in the belief that said rights can and should be bent
or broken whenever there is sufficient benefit in it for human beings.
For example, animal welfare organizations might be deeply concerned that cows
are not getting enough room or suitable food in factory farms, but they will
not take an official stance against their very confinement and slaughter,
regardless of the conditions in which these are committed.
6. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT MY SUFFERING, AND MY FAMILIES' SUFFERING, ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT OF A FROG OR A MOUSE?
As human
beings, it is only natural that the suffering of our own biological species
would move us more than that of other species; it is easier for us to identify
with it and put ourselves in place of the victim when it is a fellow Homo
Sapiens.
However this is by no means a moral or logical stance, but a purely emotional
one. Likewise, the suffering of our friends and relatives touches each and
every one of us more than the suffering of complete strangers, and yet no
one would seriously suggest that the suffering of people he knows is of more
"significance" or "worth", morally speaking, than that
of those he has never met.
It is our belief that all living beings deserve an equal consideration of
their right to live and to avoid suffering, for the simple reason that there
is simply no unbiased, truly objective and convincing standard for determining
that human suffering matters more than that of non-human animals.
As far as intellect is concerned, we might be more developed, but almost all
other animals are more developed than us in one or more different areas. The
crucial question is not their size, mental development or number of legs,
but their ability to suffer and their natural desire for a free life - and
in that respect animals are without a doubt our equals.
7. WHY DO YOU DEAL WITH THE SUFFERING OF ANIMALS WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO SUFFER AND NEED HELP?
As a
movement whose very existence is founded on a belief that suffering is suffering
no matter who is at the receiving end, the animal rights movement simply cannot
remain indifferent on issues of human suffering.
As individuals, some of us have chosen to act for non-human animals because
this issue is closest to our hearts and is therefore the one in which we'd
be the most effective; others have chosen it because contrary to the oppressed
human populations and sectors, animals cannot voice their plight by themselves
(at least not in our languages); and some of us do so for the simple reason
that animals are the most oppressed group, both in terms of numbers of individuals
oppressed and the brutal nature of the exploitation itself.
However, speaking from an acquaintance going back many years with both the
Israeli and international animal rights movement, we are able to say without
hesitation that it is mostly composed of people who resent the suffering of
all, and object to injustice and exploitation in all cases, human or non-human.
The false stereotype according to which people who care about animals don't
care about human beings is nothing more than the last refuge of those who
simply wish to remain indifferent to the misery that their lifestyles cause
others.
8. YOU MIGHT BE WEALTHY ENOUGH TO AFFORD THE ALTERNATIVES, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF HUNGRY PEOPLE IN POOR COUNTRIES WHO NEED MEAT?
Ethical
considerations aside, this question misses the factual and essential link
between world hunger and the meat industry: as long as food production in
most of the world is based on animal products, there will simply never be
enough food for all of earth's inhabitants.
The meat industry wastes much more food than it produces: about a third of
the world's grain is diverted to the fattening of animals, but only a small
amount of the food these animals consume is turned into the kind of flesh
humans eat. The most efficient and effective use of lands and crops is without
question growing food directly for humans, and not fatting up animals and
eating their flesh later on.
Apart from thoughtless, short-visioned, inefficient and selfish management
of lands and crops, the meat industry is also responsible for wasting more
water than any other industry, and plays a major role in deforestation, water
contamination, global warming and more.
9. DO YOU REALLY EXPECT OR DEMAND THAT ALL OF US TURN INTO ACTIVISTS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS?
No. We
understand that people should spend their energy campaigning for the issues
on which they feel most passionate about, and (unfortunately) there are numerous
issues in which it is urgently necessary and strongly recommended to work
for a better world.
Having said that, there is a lot of important and meaningful things which
we can do in our daily lives to alleviate the suffering of animals without
turning into "activists" and without sacrificing our time or energy.
Meals composed purely of vegetarian food, for example, do not require more
time (or money) than eating body parts of dead animals, and today it is also
widely known that this is even better to our health. Also, purchasing only
products with the label "not tested on animals" is no more expensive
or difficult than purchasing the one which are still cruelly tested on millions
of animals every single day. And these are just two good examples.
We wholly understand that it is currently impossible to abstain completely
from contributing our money to industries which cause suffering (to both human
and non-human animals), but we simply feel there is just no real reason we
shouldn't try our best to do so.
10. WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION ON ANIMAL RIGHTS?
Animal rights is a wider, more complex subject than can be described in a short flyer such as this one, which of course cannot answer all the various questions and touch on all the different aspects. That is why we encourage you to read and search further into this area, and are happy to provide you with bigger, more detailed sources (all in Hebrew):
BOOKS:
"Animal Liberation", Peter Singer (Or-Am, 1998)
"Slaughter of the Innocent", Hans Ruesch (Kineret, 1991)
INTERNET
WEBSITES:
Anonymous For Animal Rights
www.animal.org.il
The Israeli Society for the Abolition of Vivisection
www.isav.org.il