Lesser Evils
John stabs five people a day. Bob stabs one person a day.
Is Bob less harmful than John? Clearly. By a simple comparison we can accurately say that.
Is Bob a compassionate killer? Hell no. He stabs people, what does it matter what John does?
Lately, I’ve been thinking about this issue when it comes to this new “be green” fad. The public has itself convinced that by continuing to consume, they are saving the environment.
For instance, I’ve seen mugs—regular coffee mugs—marketed as being “green.” Why? Are they made of a new fresh outta the lab material? No, compared to a disposable cup, a ceramic mug is less wasteful. It is, therefore, green. Worse, they claim that one is saving the environment by purchasing and using such a mug. This brings me to my second, sub-frustration—“saving.”
It makes no more sense to say that Bob saves human beings because he stands with his hands in his pockets watching, but not helping, John commit a murder. If Bob stops the murderer or works in some kind of program to bring down the rate of violence, okay. He saves human beings.
So, pllanting a tree or cleaning up a habitat, to me, is saving the environment. But if you stand there with your ceramic mug, presumably just not also ruining the environment…how exactly are you saving it?
So why do we think this way? I think it’s more fun to retroactively write-off our past efforts as measures of salvation rather than proactively make challenging efforts to ameliorate a situation. I see this with yo-yo dieters who often cite instances where they had to walk a long distance or take the stairs as exercise credit.
Writing-off culture is especially relevant in our consumption of animal products. The idea is the same, we want to feel as if we are doing something progressive about it, as long as we can keep consuming. Here come the consciencious carnivores and flexitarians to the rescue.
It is no wonder to me why the public is so drawn to “conscientious” omnivorism. What is puzzling to me is why other vegans push it as well. Animal advocacy groups spend a great deal of time and money on welfarism campaigns believing they are a step in the right direction, that they somehow get closer and closer to the goal of animal rights.
I have also heard the defense that vegan education scares people away, and that conscientious omnivore education reaches more people. So why are we targeting the audience who is least likely to disagree with us? Isn’t this a fundamental campaign blunder?
I do not see the merit in designing campaigns to attract those least likely to go vegan and convince them to believe they can essentially keep being nonvegans with the blessing of a large animal organization. Think about it.
