On 'easier' animal rights activism

October 23, 7:24 PMVegan ExaminerAdam Kochanowicz

Single Issues

First, I'd like to remind the reader I have personally taken the position which I'm now arguing against.  I defended single-campaign issues like anti-fur demonstrations and lo-vegetarian* education because I believed they are easier for the public to reach, step towards a greater goal of ending the use of animals in any form, and that vegan education was asking too much on the public.

These were not only my thoughts but the refutation I most often get from my peers who defend single-campaign issues.

Why not?

As far as an ethical matter, the boldest objection to single-campaign issues is one of honesty.  Single-campaign issues like anti-fur and lo-vegetarian campaigns are morally dishonest because they imply if not explicitly state there is a moral distinction between using one animal or another or using an animal for one product over another.  In the case of anti-fur campaigns, there is an implication that fur is somehow "worse" than leather, wool, or other animal products.

An honest approach teaches the public that animals are exploited, killed, and endure considerable suffering not only for fur, but leather and wool as well.  We should remember the public misunderstands the production of wool, for example, to be a mutual relationship devoid of slaughter or physical harm, not to mention the ethical problem of using an animal as property.  Suffice it to say, the public is receptive to buying this distinction.  This is not to take an elitist position to say the public is not intelligent enough to understand the truth.  Being honest and teaching the public about the use of any animals for any purpose doesn't need to be frightening, it's actually easy to do and works extremely well.  Most importantly, it's morally honest and correctly educates our peers on the use of animals.

"But it's easier"

A case for single-campaign issues is often made on the basis of being "easier," or presents a campaign which is more likely to be met with approval.  While most of the individuals who make this claim have never actually given a vegan campaign (addressing the issue of animal use in general) a try in the first place, that a campaign is easier cannot make up for moral dishonesty.

The argument for "easiness" claims campaigning against fur or against meat is better because more people will agree.  I suggest there is no proof to show this.  When we tell our peers about veganism, those who find the task of eliminating animal products daunting will often shoot for vegetarianism anyway.  In the same way, people who find the idea of giving up leather, wool, fur, and any other animal-derived clothing as impossible will often find a half-approach anyway.  There's really no need to help people to fail.  

If the "easy" component is really describing the educator's comfort with discussing veganism (as I believe), the educator should remember they need only speak the truth.  Tell your peers why animals whose product is derived non-lethally (e.g. wool) actually does subject the animal to a trip to the slaughterhouse.  Tell your peers that as long as animals are property, their interests for a life free of suffering and a life at all is trumped by our interest in using them efficiently as property.

If single-campaigns really are easier ("easier" in the sense of getting our audience to take our suggestion), this also does not make up for the fact that the suggestion itself is morally dishonest and does not necessarily cause the individual to "step" towards the goal of veganism (which we have restrained from promoting).  As someone who made this argument at a time himself, I can only suggest to you: try it.  Don't suggest to your peers that vegetarianism is a gradual step.  When they do show an interest in taking a half-approach, have no fear in telling the truth, you won't scare them away or offend them.  

Vegan education

Here's what I would say to someone who told me "Yeah, I see your point, but I just don't think I could go vegan, I might be able to give up meat":

"It's easier than you think.  I think you should try it, make a vegan meal sometime or just devote one day to eating vegan, it can be fun!  Find out what's vegan in your area and see what it's like for a day."

This demonstrates an important factor of vegan education:  When your audience gives up, you shouldn't help them to give up.  In fact, they may be verbalizing their lack of will as a way of looking for affirmation from you!  This doesn't need to turn into a big argument either.  If your peer insists they just cannot go vegan, remind them animals used for dairy and eggs end up in the same slaughterhouse.  You've done what you can, you've educated them on veganism.  From there, only they can decide the right thing to do.  Thanks to you, the vegan educator, they now have an honest education in making that choice.  You'll also find those lacking a will to go vegan end up adopting the incomplete approach you would otherwise be promoting anyway.

Find Adam Kochanowicz on Twitter Facebook