ALL BEINGS

Critical attitude.

A professor at a university in Spain was preparing his students for the famous PISA tests (a worldwide study conducted by the OECD that measures students' academic performance in mathematics, science and reading comprehension), when he found that in one of the exercises the students had to state their own opinion in front of two opposing opinions in a text. It did not matter which opinion the student chose to defend, not even that he dismissed both opinions, as long as his arguments and criticisms had internal logic. The professor wondered how he could teach his students to defend arguments in a vacuum if a mere critical attitude, whatever it may be, is valued. Critical attitude is available to anyone, ignorance can criticize, so can pride. Does this mean that so-called critical thinking is sufficient to reach rational conclusions? I would say no. The young psychologist Pablo Perez said in a talk he gave at TEDTalks that the mere act of thinking is somehow critical thinking, since it is a judgment obtained through its own analysis.

This, translated into the current animal rights situation, is a ticking time bomb. We have been educated under the prejudice of speciesism, which leads us to discriminate against other animals for the mere fact of belonging to a different species. This prejudice is so deeply rooted in our lives that, in an exercise based on what is meant by critical thinking, everyone can argue as they please, without the lack of a rational, fair basis and far from merely personal opinions.

What, then, should true critical or analytical thinking be based on? On multiple factors but, above all, not on opinions or personal interests, but on logical and strongly argued reasons, being informed and possessing knowledge about what is being argued, avoiding falling into fallacies such as traditions, culture, majority opinions, personal sentimentalisms, not misrepresenting to try to change the meaning of an argument, etc.

Continuing to exploit animals is part of a prejudice but is sustained, among other things, by a lack of critical thinking based on solid existing evidence. 

The moral consideration that other animals deserve.

The human being on a practical level is not a lesser resource possibility than a non-human can be, just take a look, for example, at the abolished institution of human slavery. The key is that it is not morally right to use others for our own benefits. This responds to scientific and empirical evidence that animals with which we do not share species possess a central nervous system, which gives them sentience, a quality that allows some degree of consciousness. This reflects individuality, personality, self-interest and everything that differentiates the subject from the object, the person from the thing. Culturally we are deprogrammed for this, but that does not mean that we do not have the moral duty to change what is not right, as we do with many other customs and cultural inheritances.

Veganism as the implementation of a moral principle.

If we manage to understand the above, the only way to act consistently is to adopt veganism as the implementation of the principle of not considering other animals morally inferior.

We are supposed to reject all beliefs that are not based on evidence and logic, especially those that are demonstrably false. Every day I hear and read how veganism is labeled as "belief" and also that vegan people "indoctrinate"; but veganism, unlike what is understood today as belief, revolves around one of the most harmful and at the same time most ignored realities of all: humans consider themselves superior to other species.

Categorizing veganism as a diet is also a self-serving anthropocentric transfer of a moral principle to something "optional" or a "lifestyle". Human beings will always try to avoid anything that is uncomfortable for them to accept. So the mere fact that our diet as vegans changes from when we were speciesists makes those who are reluctant to face their prejudices reduce it to a mere diet, which makes it something alien, something that is optional.

Activism is not an option, it is an intrinsic part of veganism

In 1951, Leslie Cross, then vice-president of the Vegan Society, defined veganism as follows: "The aim of our movement must be the end of the exploitation of animals by man. The word 'veganism' will mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals." That is to say, if the objective of the movement (veganism) must be the end of animal exploitation because other animals deserve moral consideration, which although this definition does not specify it, we understand that if not, it would not make much sense, we must as vegans, make an exercise of proselytizing to achieve this. If the vegetable diet is a consequence of veganism, so is activism, and although it may not seem so, it is just as important, since the vegan individual needs activism to achieve the end of animal exploitation.

It is also in our mission to look for ways in which we can carry out our activism. Not everyone is good at the same thing bien , and it is also necessary that activism be diverse, and that the latter not be confused with being misinformed. DDAA training in animal rights should be the cornerstone of any kind of activism.

Irene Aparicio @allbeings_irene

Published in October 2022