Jerry,
OK, shall we start up our philosophical fun again today?
Humanitarian versus vegan discussion --
Quote:
|
To equate the two is to equate animal life with human life, and if you do that with something as monstrous as the Holocaust, doesn't it seem as if you would have the moral imperative to follow your own logic to its natural conculsion and devote your life to stopping modern day Holocausts? Otherwise it's just a convenient shorthand usage of an event that deserves more than to be shorthand for an entirely unrelated issues (yes, I know the animals are in their own Treblinka, but it's their own Treblinka - it's not THE Treblinka).
|
I still do not think there is the moral imperative here to be humanitarian simply because of the analogy. You are right this is a shorthand, but it is one that people can understand and relate to. Unfortunately, the suffering of animals is not something most relate to. You made a good point in an earlier post though that this is precisely what turns people off about the argument (e.g. if people are not already concerned about the plight of animals, then the comparison to Holocaust camps will certainly not hit home for them nor will it be a good argument to them). I do agree to a large extent with this earlier point you made, but it all depends on how the argument is approached. Certainly equating people who eat meat to the Holocaust executioners is absurd and offensive. But simply to equate the conditions may not be. There are many people out there who need to understand in terms they are familar with how bad the conditions are. At first they often argue, but over time the thoughts marinate and can have an effect. So, the shorthand can be an attempt to relate the conditions to others in a way they can understand.
From this perspective, the Holocaust argument is certainly one that needs to be worded carefully, and not one that is ideal as the first course of action. But in some instances, it can be help people to relate to the situation.
Look at it from this perspective. If I try to explain to you that being homophobic is comparable to racism, I am attempting to relate to you on another issue that may be more permanently engrained as immoral. I would not need, however, to fight racism in other parts of the world to make me less hypocritical for bringing up the analogy.
I like your question at the end. Not to sure I have a good response.
Best,
Joey
I want to clear up a misunderstanding that I've fostered along the way. I'm not suggesting that veganism isn't a noble choice and one that has many benefits for animals, people, and the planet. Nor was I suggesting that vegans should all be out doing humanitarian efforts or there veganism was an empty choice. What we choose to eat, like everything else, is really just one more choice we make each day in the process of creating the continuum of our lives. My issue with humanatarianism vs veganism arises when vegans (or any group) uses an event such as the Holocaust as a shorthand for their cause. The Holocaust killed millions of people for no reason, whereas factory farming kills billions of animals for no reason. To equate the two is to equate animal life with human life, and if you do that with something as monstrous as the Holocaust, doesn't it seem as if you would have the moral imperative to follow your own logic to its natural conculsion and devote your life to stopping modern day Holocausts? Otherwise it's just a convenient shorthand usage of an event that deserves more than to be shorthand for an entirely unrelated issues (yes, I know the animals are in their own Treblinka, but it's their own Treblinka - it's not THE Treblinka). Furthermore, and this is meant to help your cause, trying to convince people of the merits of veganism or even vegetarianism by using the Holocaust as metaphor is 100% counter-productive. It requires that they already believe animal life to be equally deserving of respect as human life, and if they did they wouldn't need convincing. Does that make sense?