I used to embrace the
idea the world is a violent place and that violence is an inherent
part of human nature. In the face of my vegetarian friends I would
tell myself that we cannot avoid harming insects and other animals in
our day to day living, so eating animals was merely an extension of
the violence within nature. I understood eating meat as a form of
primal connection with our history, engaging with and being part of
nature.
I was once a Realist.
I have since rejected
the Realist's way of looking at our ethical responsibility towards
animals. However, it seems
important enough to consider whether or not there is anything really
to this 'realism'.
The
most common argument that comes from the Realists is that we harm insects
everyday, in fact we cannot avoid harming insects. If we cannot
avoid harming some animals, then veganism is unreasonable as vegans
don't want to harm animals, therefore it is justifiable to dominate
and kill other animals for food, clothing, and entertainment.
The
major flaw is the assumption that it is either all or nothing: if we
can't exist without inflicting death and suffering on animals, it
gives us license to inflict more
suffering and death on animals beyond what we cannot control.
However,
it is doubtful that a Realist would use this argument to defend other
forms of violence toward animals such as dog fighting, or torture
outside the bounds of normalised abuses within the food,
entertainment, or research industries. The extent to which the
Realist embraces the natural rightness of violence concerns only
normalised violence towards animals. The Realist sees these
normalised acts of violence as being integral to the comfort and
enjoyment of their day to day lives. To eschew meat, dairy, eggs,
leather, wool, and silk etc. would be detrimental their personal
comfort.
It
is clear that the Realist is a confused speciesist: they use the
natural 'rightness' of violence only to the extent that it justifies
their discrimination so that they can continue to gain pleasure and
convenience from violence. If consuming animal products were
necessary for human survival, the argument would be more nuanced,
however, it is clear that consuming animals is not necessary for
human health and happiness.
It
may sound very
spiritual and very deep to suggest that violence is an inherent part
of the universe, but for the most part, people reject forms of
violence which stem from the unnecessary gratification of base
pleasures. So, for example, a Realist generally would not conclude
that if a person enjoys raping another person, that it is simply a
reflection of the righteous violence woven into the tapestry of the
universe.
I have rejected the
Realist's perspective as it elides that which we can't control with
the deliberate, avoidable acts of violence. This elision is
symptomatic of irrational discrimination rooted in violent practices
which we have normalised for our own pleasure and convenience and
does not represent a profound point of view.
So, I would ask all who
claim to be 'Realists' when it comes to the consumption of animals to
consider what this actually means. Are you stating something
genuine, or is it an excuse for you not to change your personal
habits and take ethical responsibility?
- Stevie Schafer, 2012
