People are going to do it anyway
I was having a conversation with a friend about pet breeding. She didn’t necessarily like the idea of breeding but wasn’t against it either. Although it would be ideal for people to adopt their animals from shelters, she said, there are some people who just won’t buy adopted animals. These people insist on buying purebred animals from breeders.
I’ve heard this fallacy used for multiple issues including gun control and theft. However, the fact that people largely commit an immoral behavior despite efforts to prevent it doesn’t warrant any reasoning to let this activity go, let alone to support it (which may be argued to be the same thing.)
In the case of breeders, indeed breeders exist to respond to the demand for purebred animals. But if we agree that the alternate option of adoption is a matter of life and death, to say the least, why help people to satisfy this demand?
In the case of the gun control argument, a classmate told me that any gun control was ultimately pointless because those who commit the violent crimes will find a way to get a gun if they really need one.
To examine just one problem of the many that exist in this statement, why, if this is true, would it be appropriate to follow this this hopeless assumption by legally sanctifying the use of guns by these violent individuals?
Let’s examine the issue of animal welfarism. This is another issue in which supporters will defend “humane” animal products because “people are going to eat them anyway.” The defeatist logic here is that we can at least play a game of “damage control” and reduce the amount of harm caused to the animal as they are continually exploited.
I can see why this position is so attractive to animal people. It is non confrontational, so easy and seemingly safe, but it’s deceptively simple.
First, we have to take some skepticism in the belief that we can make animal exploitation humane at all. The extent to which harm can be reduced to an animal is already practiced by the industry itself. They own these animals as property, it is an inherent economic interest for them to ensure welfare for the animals.
Second, why are we treating the promotion of animal exploitation as such a peaceful, neutral practice? Animal organizations are putting their reputations behind initiatives for “better” more “humane” and “ethical” animal products. Consumers are literally being told that by consuming arbitrarily different violence, they are making an ethical choice.
So I understand this fear that by withdrawing from welfarist legislation and campaigns for better exploitation, one might be turning your back on animals. But don’t fool yourself. Don’t perpetuate this violence through this false sense of progression. Making the exploitation of animals more efficient and more appealing to the masses is not a step in the right direction.
For more information, I strongly urge you to view my interview with Prof. Gary L. Francione on the left.
