I have been giving a lot of thought lately to veganism, animal rights and where I stand on the notion of “speciesism”, a term coined by Richard D. Ryder of the Oxford Group in 1970, and later popularized by the Australian philosopher, Peter Singer. Generally speaking, it is the belief that the exclusion of nonhuman animals from basic human rights is equivalent to racism or sexism, and that in order to be a truly just society this prejudice must be eliminated. For many vegans this seems pretty clear. All non-human animals should be able to share in the same protective rights as humans. However, this is not as straightforward as it appears. There are many counter arguments, and counter arguments to the counter arguments. That at a certain point the subject becomes murky, and questions in my own mind remain unanswered. For instance, how would such a policy of equal rights for animals be articulated and enforced? How would it impact indigenous peoples or those who choose to live off the land and incorporate animals for survival? What about predatory animals, such as lions and tigers? Now it may be said with some justification that these kinds of questions are typically speciesist in nature. Yes. It’s true. I do have greater loyalty toward humans than nonhumans. If a dog and human were trapped in a fire and only one could be saved, I would save the human, even if I happen to like the dog more than the human. If I were faced with a starving child and a starving cat, I would feed the child. To do otherwise would be morally wrong. Even in the case of a seriously disabled human whose mental capacity is less than most animals, I would show preference for the human. These examples are not an attempt to validate speciesism but rather recognition of the complexity surrounding the idea. This leads me to the question; do vegans really need to hold the view that speciesism is the enemy of animal liberation? Why be so protective of an ideology that is inherently problematic and tends to generate more division than consensus? What if vegans dropped the idea altogether and adopted a different approach? What if there’s a better premise to work from, a premise based on universal compassion? I believe there is such a premise and it follows like this: Unnecessary cruelty to other living creatures is fundamentally and morally wrong. It’s really that simple. The key word here is unnecessary. Is confining animals in cages for human entertainment necessary? Is wearing animal skins to keep warm necessary? Is eating animal products for nutrition necessary? Is doing medical testing on animals necessary? All of the above cases involve some measure of cruelty, but what must to be determined is their necessity. Perhaps for humans living in a harsh climate away from the rest of civilization, there is a need to eat animals and wear their skins. But in modern society, is using animal products really a necessity? By following this logic it then becomes a moral obligation to prevent cruelty where deemed unnecessary, and who, other than psychopaths, would be willing to claim that unnecessary cruelty is acceptable. Now I’m not naïve to think that there wouldn’t be disagreements as to what is considered necessary. Most omnivores are convinced that animal products are nutritionally necessary. The onus then is on vegans to prove the fallacy of such thinking. However, what’s important here is that regardless of the difference in opinion, omnivores and vegans can both agree that: Unnecessary cruelty to other living creatures is fundamentally and morally wrong. By sharing this principle, dialogue is possible between both parties. This doesn’t seem to be the case with the idea of speciesism. You’re either for it or against it, and although it may be philosophically interesting, the issues surrounding speciesism appear unresolvable. In contrast, the principle of eliminating unnecessary cruelty is a compassionate solution for vegans to adopt and work with. It is simple enough to understand, universally acceptable, and easy to apply. To realize and remove unnecessary cruelty is the path to real and lasting change.

• published: 11 Jun 2015
• views: 175