I was wondering myself while reading "
How do I get my boyfriend to stop abusing animals” how can she want the hands that he normally uses to wrench sheep’s heads or twist their necks or aggressively jam medication down their throats or repeatedly bash sheep’s nose against the concrete until they put their head up, to hold her hands, to hug her. How can someone want to cuddle in the end of the day with someone who spent it torturing helpless creatures?!
But perhaps it is more interesting to talk about the boundaries of the term abuse.
Her question is How do I get my boyfriend to stop abusing animals meaning from her perspective there is a difference between some actions and situations happening in this farm and others and it seems that the line is between what she defines as necessary and what’s not. Shearing them for example is necessary in her eyes and so is subduing rams which unlike ewes,
need to be drugged up before they can be shorn due to the fact that they’ll attack the shearers, and this means that her boyfriend has to
jump them and fight to restrain them while she stabs them in the rump with a syringe. So it is really easy to judge her for not only being with him but obviously also for taking an active part in the abuse herself, but if to make this discussion a little bit more difficult and to broaden it to the principle level… who doesn’t choose moral boundaries? who doesn’t choose where to draw the line of violence and abuse? Everybody define to themselves what abuse is and what it necessary. Some might be unaware that
they are or are in denial thinking that there is a way to be moral but
actually everybody hurts and abuse if they like it or not. Vegans also draw personal lines between what they decide is necessary and what’s not, compromising on someone else’s suffering. The difference is in the line location. It is a tremendous difference by no doubt, but it is still humans calling the shots on the account of other sentient creatures and without their permission.
From the vegans’ victims perspective there is no difference and there is no distinction between necessary and unnecessary. Their lines would be in a different place if it was up to them. But it is not their call, and that’s my point. To decide for others is inherent to living. In every consumption there is a compromise on someone else’s suffering.
In plant based diet as well . Every consumption is drawing the line somewhere, somewhere different obviously than where the victims of that consumption would place it.
I am not saying that every line drawing is arbitrary. Vegans don’t arbitrarily decide where is theirs. Obviously vegans don’t arbitrarily decide to ban animal based products, they are either unaware of the suffering involved with plant based products or catalog it as necessary.
Almost needless to say that technically if every consumption victimizes someone and there is no option to exist otherwise, then victimizing is necessary. But necessary doesn’t mean morally justified.
Vegans who are truly doing their best at minimizing their consumption to what is necessary, under no circumstances should be placed with those who consume whatever they want whenever they want for their endless pleasures. But I expect from vegan activists to go the extra mile and wonder: if it is necessary to hurt in order to exist, how can existence be moral?
