Towards Freedom

For centuries people have exploited, mutilated and abused animals in countless ways, oblivious of animal's sentience. Today a new movement rising is questioning societies use and abuse of non-human animals. The animal righton movement states that animal have a right to swim if they have fins, fly if they have wings, and run if they have feet. From killing animals for experimentation or for food, using them to do silly tricks, putting them on display, or hunting them for fun and alleged sport, animals bear the brunt of society's violence. If only we can realize the value of all life, and see animals as sentient and necessary in the web of life, the world can then see that when we live in harmony with nature, we can find peace.

This page is presently in construction.

This is the comprehensive ARVEG FAQ produced by KG which covers just about every imaginable attack against animal rights and vegan stances. It provides factual, effective and occasionally amusing responses provided. (Some additions and modifications have been made from the earlier version and the original due to broken 20+ yr links as well as new material.)

In the TOC, "->" indicates there is more to the question than could be fitted and can be viewed by clicking on the link.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Columbo 685)

The powerful words of The Declaration of Independence were announced some two hundred years ago, yet this country still toils with the problem of racial discrimination. Racism comes in many forms such as employment, wages, housing etc. There is yet another facet of racism which is being recognized called environmental racism. This is racial discrimination in environmental policymaking, law and regulation enforcement, and the deliberate targeting of people of color for toxic waste facilities. (Bullard)

No one is perfect. Everyone is open to criticism. Any individual or group can be examined and criticized where appropriate and fair. The misery and death perpetrated against nonhuman animals is an unfathomable catastrophic hell, and one should seek to improve the lives of victims whenever possible while pursuing an end to the practices. This is what we would do with a human rights situation and nonhumans deserve no less.

Human Exceptionalism is the latest term to buzz around to describe the phenomenon of human supremacy. It is a clever term I would say, as it doesn't have the bigot aura that supremacist carries. But in essence it means the same thing even if its users deny it.

Exceptionalism suggests uniqueness. Many animal righton arguments seek to downplay human uniqueness and trivialize it in order to boost the moral position of nonhumans. Exceptionalism counters that human uniqueness is real and significant.

The Golden Rule is the only moral principle that grounds itself in objective observation. The primary three systems of normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, all share the common failure to conclusively answer the question "Why should I care?" when they make claims of how individuals ought to behave. The Golden Rule, however, does not even ask that we care about the principle at all, it simply explains that when we act in a manner toward others that is inconsistent with how we would like to be treated, then we are being hypocritical and unfair. This replaces opinion with fact, so that the desires of individuals cannot be held above it. However, the Golden Rule does have some loopholes that ought to be addressed in order to form a more solid basis for morality.

The foundation of the ethical arguments used to defend vivisection, the meat industry, and other forms of exploitation protested by animal righton campaigners is the belief in human supremacy. It is generally taken for granted by both sides of the issue and left unchallenged. Advocates would discover they can make a stronger case if they relied less on the three S words (suffering, sentience and speciesism), and more on common sense, clear language and a frontal assault on human pride. It shifts the energy of the debate from a defensive posture (an effort to persuade the listener to embrace compassion and/or respect for non human life forms) to one that forces the most hard line adversary into a choice - either accept nonhuman righton as a necessary condition of a fair ethical system or concede that their own belief would allow humans to discriminate against other humans in unpleasant ways.

Let us give a gift to the world,
a gift of joy and boundless peace.

Just for a moment,
let us see through the eyes
of those, so much weaker than us,
who suffer:

An infant prisoner, the veal calf,
crying in darkness for the mother
he has never known,
her milk collected for "higher" appetites.

The egg-layer huddling painfully
in cramped confinement, destined never
to know the joy of sheltering chicks
beneath her strong wings.

Success is what the American Dream is all about. Many people are motivated by the promise of a better life, hence they chase dollar bills all their lives in the hopes of living out the American Dream - a fantasy which only money can buy. The American economic system is designed to meet the needs of the upper class, as it ignores problems of ethnic minorities.

The American Dream is a fantasy that has not come true for the millions that are toiling in the system hoping to get a piece of the wealth which America so liberally shares with its rich upper class. Mansions, expensive cars, a happy family and of course lots of money. These images adorn the minds of the less privileged of this nation.

All arguments are not created equal. There are differences in their intent and the degree to which they impact an audience's psyche. If you wish to make the strongest case for justice and respect towards nonhuman beings, then destroying human arrogance is crucial and human nature is your greatest ally in the cause.

Why is it acceptable to routinely treat nonhumans in ways that would be considered atrocities if done to the most hated criminals? An answer resides in the belief taken as self-evident absolute objective certain truth: humans are better, worth more, superior in value to other life forms because of some attributes or slogans (intelligence, a soul, favoritism by a Divine creator or Nature, might makes right, etc.). When examined, every one of these traits are subjective and biased personal opinions like a belief in the importance of skin color or gender or a particular interpretation of scripture. Nature (and/or deities) cannot be proven to care or judge, as humans are just as mortal and subject to weather and physics as all other living beings. The fact that humans can and do exploit other humans and always have, is the best evidence that human superior worth is not absolute truth but merely opinion. It also means that if someone wants to justify discrimination towards humans based on race or gender or religion etc., they can use the same excuse (subjective and biased personal opinions) as used by those who deny nonhuman rights.

I was encouraged by a recent editorial denouncing whaling as cruel. I have also read that 70% of Canadians agree, including such local public figures as Reform MP, Gary Lunn. I wondered, though, if there is an inconsistency with the fact that most of us eat animals regularly. My first thought was that whales are killed in a cruel way, but that animals are raised for food in a humane manner.