A philosophical Review And Introspective Inquiry:

The portal for which I began writing these articles began with seeing something which shifted my entire paradigm. I saw the story of a poor, beautiful little soul, who had been exploited by an industry, unbeknownst to myself, that is incredibly cruel. But the story wasn’t that of a child, an adult, or even a dog. It was that of a sweet little blind cow, and the industry was what we call the dairy industry. Maybe sometime I’ll write an article predicated less on intellectualism, and give you more personal insight into my soul. But for now, what’s relevant is, the story, to me, was emotionally omnipotent, and it forced my hand. I was vegan the next day. From there, I immersed myself in knowledge about veganism, of which, the resources are vast. I examined medical; nutritional data; agricultural; environmental; biological; psychological; historical; even sociological and economic data. I wanted to help. The most incredible fact, I have ever come across, in life, is how one has to be an expert on so many topics and have readily available access to so much knowledge, just to encourage others to do the right thing, and not needlessly harm the most vulnerable, and gentlest beings on this earth. I did intentionally leave out 1 particular topic that I researched extensively. This has been an area of great interest to me, my entire adult life, potentially even as a child, and it’s that of philosophy. Ultimately, veganism is a philosophical stance against the abuse and exploitation of animals in any format, so I needed to know everything. I believe, as mentioned in my prior article, regarding sociological observations about prior social justice movements, that we do need every type of personality to help, but above all else, we need those who have the propensity to affect true societal change. We need the most intelligent, educated, charismatic, tenacious and elementally good people to stand up and articulate. I’m not saying any of those other attributes are ones which I hold, but I know I’m a person of high intelligence, and I believe intelligence is not a privilege, but a gift, something which should be used to better the world. I borrowed this notion from a popular film, from the noughties era, but it resonated with me then, and it resonates with me now. My good friend Andy, who has been so incredibly kind to embrace me into the vegan community, but even more so, share his significant, self-constructed platform, asked me then to contribute to this incredible online vegan resource, he is buiding. So now, after engaging in the psychology of animal abuse, and the sociology of why this is paradoxically perpetuated in society, it’s time to get to the core and discuss the philosophy of it all. The source material for that of animal rights activism – the pursuit of convincing society to recognise the rights of nonhuman animals – is truly that of philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Reagan. Both men did incredible work on this front, and their collective works are the gold standard of how we pursue this justice movement. I could do what essentially every budding philosopher, who believes in the fight, does, and speak extensively on their work, potentially adding a couple of personal perceptions on them, but I don’t want to do that. I would only inadvertently end up plagiarising their work, or offering something completely derivative. I don’t have the hubris to assume I can add anything to the incredible philosophical works, and arguments, these great men, made. This article won’t be so much about academic citations, I would love to just communicate my own philosophical stance, and speak broadly on the topic, through the prism of my own experience, as a perennial student of both philosophy, and life. If you would like the key points in the arguments for/against animal rights, please do read this incredible piece on educational resource, Internet Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy: https://iep.utm.edu/animals-and-ethics/#SSH1fi Animal rights is a matter of ethics, so it exists within the sphere of moral philosophy. Bioethics, to be specific. Even as a society, circumspectly, we understand that animal treatment has ethical implications. Most people in society, studies show, identify as animal welfarist’s. Let’s begin with why I think animals are deserving of rights. Well it’s very simple, they are born with the same intrinsic rights as humans, as they are conscious, sentient, living beings. Morality is about right and wrong, and this conceptually means that our actions have positive or negative implications on other living beings with their own desires and experiences. A flip side of this would be selfishness, or self-serving psychology, which we define as immoral. The most immoral individuals of all time are those who only serviced their own needs and desires at the expense of anyone else (see Roman Emperor Caligula, or an infamous political figure from 1930’s/1940’s Germany). We know that animals have the same pain receptors, nervous systems and neural anatomy, structurally, as humans. If you understand the fact that animals have intrinsic rights on that basis, raising and killing animals for products is morally wrong. What can be reasoned or justified is that which is done as a necessity. In an existential context, survival is paramount, and certainly any living being has the right to fight for survival. But in the context where we don’t need to use animals for food, or any other product/byproduct, it cannot be justified as we objectively do not need to kill animals for survival. This is a clear violation of the animal’s rights. How well an animal has been treated prior to being killed is completely irrelevant. Infact being mistreated is far better than being killed, ultimately, as time/life are our most valuable possessions. Time is the only thing that cannot be bought or sold. So treating an animal well prior to killing them is in and of itself a completely immoral act. No amount of mental gymnastics and figurative pats-on-the-back like using the word “humane” horribly incorrectly and out of context, is going to make the act itself, moral. We recognise that acts such as enslavement, racism, sexism, personal prejudice, are morally wrong, as mistreatment of other living beings is inherently immoral. Human beings are born with intrinsic rights, as we have the ability to perceive and feel, so this must logically be extended to animals as well. Humans, after all, despite what we try to convince ourselves of constantly, are just animals ourselves. For all of our perceived intelligence and superiority, we are just apes, at the end of the day. Can you compare another primate like a gorilla or chimpanzee to a human? Well, of course we can, we’re part of the same family. And in academic actuality, we do. Part of the basis of the entire fields of psychology and sociology compare human behaviours to those of other primates, such as in social hierarches, romantic courtship, social interactions, male aggression, familial behaviours, etc. Can we likewise compare another primate to a pig? Well, logically, I couldn’t see why not. And in science, again, we do. Biology would compare genetic similarities to that of pigs and other animals. Even comparative studies on animal sentience will compare pigs to both other primates, and even human children. And they are comparable. For instance, more recent studies on pig intelligence and sentience, showed that pigs can actually operate gaming consoles, in more skilled ways than 3 year old children. Pigs and other nonhuman animals like cows, dogs, etc, have been shown to have superior neural plasticity to 3 year olds, likewise. We would even have other primates in zoos alongside other nonhuman animals, so even the societal treatment, aligns. So if we can compare another primate to a pig, and to a human, why could we not logically compare a pig to a human? Well, basic logic says, of course we can. The concept of Rights is meaningful within the context of a social contract forged by intelligent beings. Humans alone have this ability to agree to a mutually binding contract. But doesn’t this mean only humans are worthy of moral value, by this understanding? Well, the problem is, many humans cannot forge such a contract, and therefor if you are going to separate humans and nonhuman animals into 2 separate boxes, to account for asymmetrical treatment, unfortunately it would then require separating the most vulnerable of humans into those animal boxes as well. And therefor the argument itself is predicated on abuse, exploitation and tyranny. Like these types of humans, animals can be indirect beneficiaries of these social contracts, like children, the senile elderly, and severely cognitively handicapped people. The most sophisticated, and comprehensive peer reviewed paper, I have encountered on this notion, thus far, is by Dr L Syd M Johnson, philosopher, bioethicist, neuroethicist, and clinical ethics consultant; also Professor at SUNY Upstate Medical University, Centre Of Bioethics And Humanities, in New York, USA. The paper can be found on scientific publication database Pubmed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34966225/ Dr Johnson examines the case for awarding animals moral status, based upon prior philosophical works, from Reagan and Singer. She spotlights the fact, rightly so, that animals are indeed what we call moral patients, beings of moral concern and consideration from adult human moral agents. And beings whom we, as moral agents, have a duty and obligation, to protect, not exploit. We as adult humans, at least with no cognitive impairment, and no dark psychological traits, are deemed moral agents. This means we have the intellectual understanding of morality – ie right and wrong – and both the intellectual and emotional capacity to engage with this concept. The salient subject of the paper is about moral status, as humans, in conjunction with our moral agency, and why nonhuman animals are extremely worthy of moral status, and therefore moral concern. There are many types of humans who are moral patients, and lack agency, by the way, such as the aforementioned marginal cases, in prior paragraph. Even those with diagnosed psychopathy, Machiavellian personality types, and diagnosed narcissists, do not have full moral agency. Important to note also, animals are not incapable of morality themsleves. There are past studies on animals which concluded that they have a primitive sense of morality, such as rhesus monkey studies where they refused to dispense electric shocks to fellow monkeys, even if they would get food as a reward for doing so. The same result was observed in rats, and numerous other animals. We can even observe this in particular cases where dogs have defended human children from other dog attacks, even though they were not trained to do so. And lions have chased down prey, and not proceeded to kill and eat them, instead forming bonds with their prey, even although they need to eat said animals in order to survive. Though only humans have the capacity for moral agency, I also believe this should imbue us with a responsibility to care for more vulnerable beings, instead of using it as a justification to exploit them. One of the most esteemed and celebrated writers of human history, Leo Tolstoy, famously a devout vegetarian, and incredibly wise, intelligent man, wrote and spoke extensively on animal ethics. Tolstoy, who was nominated numerous times for the Nobel Peace Prize, wrote “as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will always be battlefields.” I don’t believe humans will ever be able to treat each other with kindness, dignity, and respect, while we exist in a world where the most vulnerable, gentle, and kind beings are exploited and killed, brutally, every single day, right in front of us, for no valid reason, other than the enjoyment it brings us. Even if your political beliefs are that of utilitarianism – whereby anything is acceptable as long as it provides utility, ie benefit, to society at large, or the majority – which is a system I absolutely do not subscribe to, as it lacks fundamental ethics, then veganism would still be preferable. What we learned in my prior 2 articles, is that those who are cruel to animals, intentionally, are a huge risk to society, and often graduate to violent crimes against humanity. And those humans coerced into professions where animal cruelty is part of the job description, ie slaughterhouse work, is so inherently corrosive to the psychological stability of the individual, and leads to elevated rates of suicide, crime, substance abuse, and partner abuse, in local communities. Latterly, we have learned that any global demand for meat, particularly in civilised society, leads to big factory farms becoming an absolute necessity to match that demand. However, in order to do so, and remain consumer efficient, it has now caused severe problems regarding a multitude of zoonotic diseases, and resistances in our antibiotic medications. These are issues of severe global concern, and threaten to eradicate the entire human race. Without antibiotics, with contemporary human society as it is, the vast majority of people, most likely all of us, will not survive. So even if one’s philosophical stance is completely self-serving, veganism would be the preferable course of action for both the individual, and society. Incidentally, for more comprehensive information on the alarming danger that antibiotic resistance via animal agriculture, poses, a multitude of peer reviewed studies and articles are available via scientific resource database Pubmed. Here are some of the most comprehensive ones I could locate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4638249/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37399216/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399585/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694297/ Any contrary arguments to veganism are either predicated on tyranny, supremacy, and oppression, or they are logical fallacies, errors in sound reasoning. For instance, one arguing against veganism may say, “but we are top of the food chain.” Well, as objectively false as this is, even if it were the case, wouldn’t it logically excuse child abuse, rape, misogyny, sexism, pedophilla? Men, after all, are generally the stronger sex, and adults are stronger than, and stewards of, children, in society. So therefore any arguments made in favour of strength/dominance, to justify killing animals, would have horrific logical repercussions. In terms of fallacies, someone may say “but these animals are bred to be killed for food, that was their purpose.” This is an uncommon fallacy called “confusing an explanation with an excuse.” Obviously, just because animals were bred for exploitation and death, doesn’t excuse the immoral act itself. An explanation of something cannot be used as a justification for what it explains. For instance, the same argument could be applied to dog fighting rings, or the sex trafficking industry. One of the most common arguments is the appeal to tradition fallacy – “we’ve been eating meat since the beginning of time.” In theory, on first recital, you might think this is decent reasoning. However, humans have also been murdering each other, raping each other, cannibalising, since that very time. Does this logic excuse these acts too? Of course not. Infact, for me personally, if anything, if humans have been doing something since the beginning of time, it’s probably something we need to move as far away from as possible. Our ancestors were extremely violent, and lived lives that are not in any way reflective of our comfortable society of heated homes, automobiles, technology, and supermarkets. As mentioned in my prior sociological article, we perform a variety of mental gymnastics, like denial, and emotional dissociation, in order to cope with the reality of the “meat paradox” – when society’s enjoyment of meat, collides with our belief that harming animals is cruel. Some people, however, usually those who make supremacist arguments, will lean towards the philosophy of anthropocentrism, which translates directly to human supremacy. This is a philosophical stance utilising the logic of white supremacy, and applies it towards nonhuman animals. In psychology, we actually deem this to be a recognised cognitive bias called “anthropocentric thinking” – whereby one will deny the factual similarities and comparisons between humans and nonhuman animals. They may even fatuously claim that humans are not animals themselves, when centuries of biological study, unequivocally proves we are. Morality is about doing the right thing, and how can we possibly say needlessly killing animals would be a paragon of this concept? Morality runs proportionately with empathy. They aren’t entirely synonymous concepts, but they are deeply intertwined. We have morality due to our inherent empathy with other humans and other beings, in conjunction with our intuition regarding not causing harm, in relation to guilt and remorse. Psychology even regards a lack of inherent empathy, basic human warmth, and morality, to be some of the key diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorders and dark triad personality types. Philosophy is a matter of logical mastery, and some would call assessing society from a vantage point of emotion, to be illogical. One must remain rational, and objective, after all. But, without emotion, a cold, logically-centric society would be cruel, brutal and immoral, by nature. We would have to redefine the denotation of morality itself, just to perpetuate such a society. Taking emotion and empathy into account is logical, as we ourselves have advanced intelligence but also emotion and empathy. Certainly that is what we define as being a healthy psychological process. Just before proceeding, the one reference to historical philosophical stances, I think is worth addressing, is what some of the most esteemed and celebrated philosophers of history, had to offer on animal ethics. I don’t think it’s wise to deviate too far astray from the source material, and I certainly have nothing but admiration and respect for the contributions so many of the great philosophers made, to the subject, generally. The arguments made against veganism are made by general individuals I interact with, in society, but what did the intellectual giants have to say? Well, let’s start with Aristotle. He said there was a natural hierarchy of living beings. Ok, perhaps. But what did he mean? He spoke of the natural abilities of certain living beings, and that both humans and nonhuman animals conscious experiences, naturally put them above plants. Well, I’m inclined to agree, and the scientific consensus would align with this. Aristotle was able to discern this around 2.5 thousand years ago and yet we, in the age of information, cannot connect to this notion, as a society. The one critique I would have, is that Aristotle believed only humans have have the ability to reason, while animals rely exclusively on instinct, and that therefor animals were below humans and exist to service the needs of humanity. Well, obviously, that’s objectively false. Animals have complex abilities to reason, apply rational thought, and have incredible cognitive systems. As mentioned prior, animals even have a primitive understanding of morality. Any challenge to that notion can easily be deconstructed with any studies on animal sentience or consciousness, such as this meta analysis of several decades of study on animal sentience: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494450/ I can’t speak directly to Aristotle’s intentions or motives, and whether his belief was a justification for his eating habits, but I think regardless, the lack of study and data on animal cognition, generally dictated the beliefs of humans, regarding nonhuman animals, through less advanced human history. Next, the famous Christian philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas had a similar stance on animal ethics. He also believed that animals lacked the ability of rational thought and that therefore, humans were the only type of species worthy of moral concern. Again, I don’t blame the societies of the past for not having the scientific data to know better, but it is conceptually somewhat concerning that a saint had an anthropocentric, ie supremacist, perspective on an ethical topic. Aquinas generally believed that animals were instruments for human use, predicated on his religious belief, and that humans were created in the image of God, and the salient species, therefore, of the concern of God. Obviously science has objectively disproven this. But on a personal note, perspectives such as this are a paradigm of why Judeo-Christian values are so inherently unattractive. Religion, a belief in something deeper, and more meaningful, should be used as a portal for good, not for exploitation or harm, of any kind. Latterly, the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s belief on the subject circulated the notion of autonomy, specifically of it being a necessary property for any being to be considered in the moral assessment of actions. Autonomy could be defined as a figurative interpretation of the primary definition, which would be the right to self-govern, meaning the liberation to one’s own body. Which of course, animals can, and have been doing so since the dawn of time. The secondary definition, and the more philosophical, would be the capacity of an agent to act in accordance with objective morality rather than under the influence of desires. He believed humans alone have the capacity to put their desires to the side, and use personal will, to act antagonistically to them, and choose the correct course of action. Well, as mentioned, animals may not be full moral agents, but they can act morally. Likewise, it’s an archaic belief that animals only act in accordance with desires, as previously stated. There was still a palpable lack of education regarding animals’ cognitive and intellectual capacities, so it’s not incredibly surprising Kant believed this to be the case, but contemporary science doesn’t align with this. Even if he were correct, Tom Reagan’s re-imagination of the argument from marginal cases would then spotlight the fact that logically, Kant would be arguing to abuse and exploit children, mentally handicapped, etc. If we apply logic, we have to do so universally, and separating humans and nonhuman animals into 2 divorced boxed would also place many humans with nonhuman animals, on the chopping block, so to speak. The philosopher René Descartes had a more temerarious view of animal ethics, again based on animal cognition. Descartes believed animals could act like a conscious being, but that they really weren’t. His perspective on animals was that they act on purely mechanistic terms, and that they were generally devoid of actual consciousness. My intuition tells me such an aggressive view, which could be disproven by anyone who has ever spent any significant amount of time with an animal, was predicted on his own desires and preferences. There is absolutely no veracity to this, and even 1500’s time period level knowledge could disprove purely by observation. For such an incredibly intelligent man, this was pure pontification. Much of Descartes viewpoint was even predicted on human ability for speech, so therefore animals would be immediately disqualified from moral consideration due to biological anatomy. Again, any human without the ability to speak or function cognitively above that of an animal, would be placed in the same category. Descartes had a number of accessory viewpoints on animal ethics but none worth even devoting the time required for demolition. Far more recently, the Philosopher Peter Carruthers has argued that animals are potentially not conscious beings by virtue of the fact that humans essentially are the only higher level of being who act in conscious awareness, and animals act in a manner more closely related to non-conscious reaction. This to me would be more back to the theory that animals are essentially reactive, purely on instinct, and cannot apply conscious thought. Honestly, I find theories like this to be asinine. Carruthers has made some meaningful contributions to cognitive science, my area, and I do respect this a great deal. However, again, the science on this area is extremely clear, and the studies on animal sentience are aligned. Consciousness after all is but a pre-requisite for sentience. I wonder what Carruthers motives would be for such a belief? He further argues that as only humans are capable of what he deems to be higher conscious thought, then only humans are worthy of moral consideration. Again, this does not align with scientific consensus, but if it did, this would logically give justification to morally disregard all those humans who didn’t have the propensity for conscious application beyond animal capability. If not, this would be a paragon of logical cherry picking, a fallacious line of reasoning. I truly believe these “ethical” belief systems are just an elemental lack thereof. In my short time fighting for animal rights, it has been astounding to me how seemingly highly intelligent individuals will allow themselves to think so irrationally. For me, just spending any meaningful amount of time with a dog, pig, cow, etc, is enough to understand that animals are quite clearly conscious, emotional, sentient. The same person will tell you how intelligent and loving their dog is, while moments later telling you that killing a cow is acceptable due to the fact animals are not conscious, or not conscious enough for moral concern. Carruthers and Kant both agreed that torturing an animal for fun would be wrong, but only because of the psychological harm it would affect on the individual, not on the cat. If this would have a negative psychological connotation to an individual, meaning the act was so inherently pernicious to the human psyche, there must be a good reason for that. The answer, of course, is, it’s because it would be cruel. The cat is a living, sentient being, with thoughts, feelings and desires, just like a human, and the complex ability to feel pain and suffer. And a far more gentle, vulnerable being than a human equal to said abuser. With this in mind, animals are, of course, naturally very worthy of moral consideration, and no amount of mental gymnastics to attempt to justify tyrannous, callous behaviour, will invalidate that. Ironically, with the belief of said philosophers, in this analogy, the reasoning itself for why it would be wrong, directly disproves their prior assertions regarding animal consciousness, and therefore, animal ethics. Many other philosophers have made arguments for and against animal ethics, and this isn’t an academic essay, so no need to go through and systematically deconstruct each one. These were the most historically significant, and therefore worthy of note. On the bright side, many philosophers beyond Reagan, and Singer, have also argued in favour of the moral worth of animals. One of the first ever philosophers in human history, the Ancient Greek, Pythagoras, historically celebrated for his contributions to mathematics, was an animal ethics advocate. At the point in history where vegetarianism was what veganism is now, not the watered-down dietary concept that it has become, Pythagoras was a steadfast advocate for it. He had a general reverence for life, and believed in a form of reincarnation, whereby the souls of previous humans could be within animals, or vice versa. As overly ethereal as that is for me to palate, he was one of the first ever intellectuals speaking in favour of animal ethics, and a good standard reference point for early philosophical clout on the side of veganism. I am somewhat spiritual myself, to a certain degree, however, and the part of Pythagoras philosophy I do endear very much though, is that his belief was killing animals sullied the human soul, and made humans violent and war-hungry. I couldn’t possibly agree more, I have believed this my entire life. I believe that figuratively you are what you eat. And eating pain, suffering, anguish and despair, daily, must weigh heavily upon the human soul. He also did believed it was unhealthy for the body and one must respect his foresight. He seemed to be a couple of millennia ahead of nutritional scientists in that respect. The last entity I would love to give honourable mention to, was a philosophical writer named Howard Williams, circa 1800’s, who wrote an early but pivotal book called “The Ethics Of Diet.” This was the gold standard for Victorian vegetarianism (again, a first draft of veganism), and very influential upon the movement within the era. Ultimately, it was one of the compelling factors to shifting the paradigm of highly intellectual people like Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, and even Albert Einstein, in favour of vegetarianism. The book was a literature in historical dietetics from the earliest period to that point in human history, and provided an intersection between nutritional dietetics and moral philosophy. Noted on the philosophical front, within the book, are commentaries made in favour of vegetarianism by giants such as philosopher Voltaire, Ovid (writer of the great Metamorphosis), Alexander Pope (English poet), and many other wise individuals. Williams wrote other literature works and made great contributions to the movement, bringing peaceful eastern philosophical stances, originating from Jainism and Hinduism, towards animals, to western civilisation. I’m not quite sure the vegan movement would be what it is today without him. Philosophically, I tend to subscribe to what one of the first philosophers, Confucius,’ described as the Golden Rule – “Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you.” A simplistic, but profound notion. Morality is about empathising, and seeing things from the perspective of the victim, and this is what we must endeavour to do, as humans. I don’t want to extensively discuss the notion of philosophical meta ethics, but this is a concept which seeks to define certain belief systems about morality. One is called “moral relativism” – essentially a belief that all morality is subjective, based on personal opinion. But, this is not the reality of society, we collectively advocate for authoritative bodies to circumvent chaos, and impose laws. Also, when one is in the position of being a victim of another’s subjective perspective of morality, this tends to shift extremely fast. Another is called “moral objectivism,” with “moral absolutism” being a more rigid, un malleable version. This is a belief that morality is objective. There are arguments for this, based upon society’s collective actions and wants, or that religious groups all subscribe to the same moral source. However, in action, many vast denominations and extremist groups within said religions with wildly conflicting beliefs would seem to deconstruct this. And with society, morality seems to evolve for the better constantly, and laws change, annually. So not entirely true either. Lastly, another belief is that of “moral realism,” which is a fairly un rigid belief system that some morals are objective – ie true for everyone, and others, more subjective. Within this belief system though, is a great deal of complexity and nuance. I believe that some things can be objectively wrong, but on rare occasions can be justified if for the greater good, depending on the cost paid to achieve. As it is fairly equivocal, I suppose I loom on the cusp of this system. I think aspects such as professional work ethics can be somewhat subjective, and that there are moral grey areas. I’d like to close off by giving a final few remarks on ethics, principles, and our own introspective philosophies. My position on animal rights is translucent, at this point. And I genuinely believe no argument that isn’t based on complete absurdity or fallacy, can challenge it. We are nothing without our principles, in life, and the way we treat animals is directly reflective of who we are as both individuals, and the tapestry of society. I don’t want to be the sort of person who can be corrupted. Not by money, not by rewards, not by acclaim, not even by my own desires. When I was very young, I was lucky enough to interact with, and love, some beautiful little nonhuman animal souls. And likewise, by pure happenstance, my mother is the biggest true lover of animals I have ever known, and much of who I am as a man is directly thanks to she. I try to be a decent person, and I wasn’t always as ethical as I try to be now. I wasn’t always a great person, and I’m not one now, but I am trying to do better. Veganism isn’t about moral perfectionism, it’s about doing the best we can given the tools available to us. If I want to be the best version of myself, that includes the most moral and most kind version. In society, I believe this is something we should all strive towards. My online activism persona is “Kal-El,” and an old pop culture reference said, of humanity, “they are a good people Kal-El, they wish to be, they only lack the light to show them the way.” In society, it’s generally accepted that it is men’s duty, as the more physically fortified sex, to protect women. Don’t get me wrong, there are many women who could defeat me easily in physical combat, I wouldn’t step in a ring with Ronda Rousey, for instance, but this is generally accepted to be the rule. If I were romantically tethered, I wouldn’t expect my partner to protect me. Likewise, in society it is accepted that it is adults task to take care of, and protect children, by the same logical application. When adults get into elder years, likewise again, this extrapolates. The reasoning is circulatory to vulnerability. These types of humans are all more vulnerable, and it is the duty of the less vulnerable to protect them, therefore. But why then, following the same logical path, do we not extend this to nonhuman animals? Instead, we exploit this vulnerability to dominate, abuse and kill. This makes absolutely no sense, it is inconsistent logic, pure and simple. I personally believe this to be the darkest aspect of the human experience. In actual fact, this would be a paragon of the special pleading fallacy. It all comes back to what I discussed in my prior article, about social norms. If something is generally a social norm, there is a limitless degree to what society is willing to do, to perpetuate and maintain the status quo. But social norms, as mentioned, do not dictate morality, and even philosophy itself recognises this, by virtue of this being the definition of the appeal to normality fallacy, under the ad populum umbrella. I mentioned this point in previous article, but it’s contextually relevant. You don’t even need to view nonhuman animals on the same worth level, as humans, to respect their right to live. In a circumstance where you may have to decide to save either a human, or an animal, you may choose a human. This could even be argued as being natural. We tend to value our own species higher, as we understand their experience greater. I don’t follow this myself, for instance, my dog companion and my mother are the 2 most important beings on this earth, to me, and I would give my own life, or the life of anyone else, to save theirs. And I think this rings true with many others with animal companions, but it matters not, we don’t need to agree, but we can all at least accept the fact we objectively do not need to kill animals, superfluously, for our survival, prosper, and we can respect their right to live. Incidentally, People don’t see that value in animals often because they’ve never known the love of an animal. I can say from personal experience it is something so special, magical even, something almost more meaningful and beautiful than the love of another person. Animals, unlike us, can actually love unconditionally. They don’t care what we’ve done or mistakes we’ve made, they just want our time, love and care. How fortunate you are indeed if you’ve ever known this love. In the eyes of every single animal I see, needlessly suffering, for trivial human vanity products, I see the eyes of my dog companion. We don’t see the reality of the cruelty of the industries that exploit, harm and kill these beings. I believe that is a major reason why the norm of it, is what it is. So it is our duty to show the people. The philosopher Plato’s allegory of the cave is very much about enlightenment through knowledge, and we must stand up and pull the curtain down. We must work diligently to change these callous, illogical norms, though intelligence, tenacity and toil. If we purport ourselves to be good and just people, we have a duty and obligation. As a wise man (Christopher Nolan) once said, “it’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”