Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Exactly ^^ This is the best course of action because the consequence is our own (guilt), whether we perverted their genomes with centuries of selective breeding in domestication, or not. I think most of the participants in this thread would agree with your conclusion no matter how bitter it may be, but most vegans would not.
[/b]
We must never be blind to consequence because our world is not static and our actions and inactions are have effect. No matter how noble we might find an action today, neglecting consideration of, or worse yet, ignoring, the consequence of tomorrow is as worthy of rebuke as anything.
Simply abstaining from participation in a morally objectionable act is inherently selfish because at the end of the day the only one who benefits from the abstinence is the one who abstains. By placating one's own conscience one absolves oneself of guilt thereby garnering emotional satisfaction in one's own virtuous nature, while having done nothing to right the wrong.
Choosing not to participate in something is not the same as stopping it.
Evs, our very special ability to reason allowing us to act contrary to carnal impulse is the very reason we ought to question our feelings rather than permit them to rule us. They are neither rational, nor prescient. They seek only to extricate us from the source of our discomfort as quickly as possible, often leading to embrace of ineffective or otherwise less than ideal resolutions.
Problems are not solved by avoiding them.
|
Most vegans would agree that opening the gates of the cow pasture and walking away would be a negative course of action and that a final culling or sterilization for any farm animals that won't be kept as pets would be a positive course of action. Ceding them to nature is inhumane, but using that as a defense of just carrying on the status quo - as it seems that you're trying to do - is just being willfully ignorant.
Choosing not to participate in something and having conversations like these with other people solves it. Walking around smacking McChickens out of peoples' hands might work, but would be a pretty strange approach. I can try to convince others, but I can't force action from others, I can only choose for myself.
It's not just for the peace of mind of the abstainer. It's for the animals that they would have eaten that they haven't. It's for the people who they speak to about it that change their mind and the animals affected by those proxy decisions. The decision affects more than just the abstainer so your "Problems aren't solved by avoiding them" argument is pretty weird.
If you're suggesting that there are moral consequences to the "Inaction" of not trying to stop animals from eating animals or not trying to burn down butcher shops, stop it.
You're reaching, man.