In order for animals to be truly liberated they cannot be considered property as money will always override welfare. The idea that we have a moral obligation to a commodity doesn’t work. Would you afford your car rights? No.
Regardless of how well treated the vegan’s chickens are, the vast majority of people will not treat them in this way. So the price we pay for animal ownership is that millions of chickens die every year in horrendous conditions.
Captive chickens (even free range) are still more susceptible to disease, fungus and attack from predators. As well as this, you are depriving a sentient being from leading a self directed life. The chickens become completely dependent on you for their shelter, food and care, as you manipulate their environment to suit your needs i.e. eggs.
Why can’t these animals be free? Or in the case of domestic chickens, why must they be continually bred into slavery? Eggs are not a necessity; they’re a pleasure (for some). Therefore chickens have a right to be free or in the case of domestic chickens, not to be bred into such an existence.
Now many people will say, “But my chickens are happy, I give them everything they need and they don’t know any better.” Firstly who are we to decide or know exactly what they need or want? Chickens are sentient beings with a right to a self directed life. It is true that they may not know any better, but nor did Jim Carrey’s character in the Truman Show. Truman had everything he needed and he was happy before finding out his life was a carefully constructed TV show. Does that mean it was morally right to do this to Truman? No. Truman has the right to make his own way in the world. Sure, he may make mistakes and take risks but they’re his choices to make, not ones to be dictated by others. All animals can make choices despite how ‘stupid’ some people think they are. They choose where to go, where to sleep, where to nest, when to play, to sleep, to eat, who to bond with, the list goes on. Even people with profound intellectual disabilities make choices, choices they can’t communicate easily. They retract from things, they pursue things, they make noises, they remain silent etc. Over time we try to learn what they are telling us but all the while they are making choices.
Now this doesn’t mean we let all chickens loose if we know that it is highly likely they will die due to their domestication, over breeding and the fact that they have no natural environment to return to. In this case, they would need to be cared for until they die out naturally.
It is therefore permissible for a vegan abolitionist to care for a rescued chicken but not to breed them. Now technically if an unfertilized egg is found as a side affect, and this was not encouraged to occur and has been discarded by the chicken, then morally yes a person could eat this egg but of course they would cease to be vegan. However, if a person had a leg removed due to a car accident, would you eat the person’s leg as it is merely a side affect left to waste? Would you harvest the eggs from a woman who is brain dead? I personally would not. It is obviously disrespectful and sends the wrong message but most importantly, these things are still their possession.
This is indeed a grey area for some people but this does not negate everything else I have stated in this blog. For example, most people believe killing humans is wrong but people argue whether capital punishment is morally right. Just because we can’t agree where to draw the line this doesn’t mean that we can all start killing each other and think that it’s morally permissible.
In the end these scenarios (that meat-eaters generally pose) are not helpful or relevant to the fact that killing animals is morally wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment