Reasonability, Fox Hunting and Animal Rights Activists.

I'm not a bastard. Gross cruelty to any creature purely for pleasure is not something I condone. But there's a distinction between animal welfare and animal rights. And there's the issue of cuteness clouding common sense and intelligence.

So many of the issues regarding 'X' vs 'Animal Rights Groups' are a matter of subjectivity, hypocrisy or both. Let's take the stance of PETA ( People for Ethical Treatment of Animals). I, myself, am a member of this organisation and believe vehemently in some of the animal welfare issues they campaign for. But there's the vegan ideology they propagate that I find simply, well, flawed.

In any 'to meat, or not to meat' debate, at some point someone will shout 'You may not kill or use animals but you use vegetables- and they're alive. Isn't that just as bad?'. To which a response of 'They don't feel pain or know anything' is given. On the surface this reply seems to deal with an apparently ridiculous comparison using plants. But is it really that ridiculous?

What this typical defence seems to imply is that there's no pain, so its not cruel, therefore it's okay to kill plants for food. There are two problems that make the argument hard to swallow. Firstly, it states that if no discomfort or knowledge of fate is experienced, its okay to kill and eat it. And secondly, it is acknowledged that although the plant is a form of life, it's structure and development means its fine to kill it.

So after looking closely, we are left with two principles that are potentially quite sinister. Can we then, applying the principles, kill a person or animal as long as they don't feel discomfort or know anything about it? Can we kill any life form we want, as long as it doesn't have a central nervous system or is not very developed? These questions would likely be denied by any vegan or vegetarian and they would tell you that these principles cannot apply to humans in such a way. You can't just kill a person if they don't feel it! And someone with brain damage cannot have their life ended! People have rights and are protected from such exploitation.

And that brings me to the crux of the matter- where do we draw the line between life forms such as humans, animals and plants? The only difference between a vegan and a meat eater is where the line for absolute rights is drawn. And the best place for rights absolute to be stopped is exactly between humans and the rest of the animal and plant kingdom. Why? Its simple. We are one species and from a self preservationist and care for the human race- the most important race from our point of view- drawing the line there is the most rational choice.

We, however, by reserving rights for ourselves, do not leave animals open to abuse and suffering. The issue of animal welfare is equally as important and should be upheld just as much as human rights. We should be compassionate to the creatures we eat in order to sustain ourselves. It should be a duty, borne from respect and gratitude to the animal, that they are kept in natural environments in proper conditions and not cruelly exploited. But 'compassion' does not mean never killing them for food. The bottom line is our species eats and uses other species, the element of empathy and compassion should be shown through humane husbandry not humanisation of animals (or plants).

So in an issue like fox hunting, where does the compassion come in? Well in some cases, where it is done badly and without any reason but for pleasure, it doesn't. But in the majority of cases where skilled hunters are involved, the compassion is manifested in not one but two ways. Firstly, a swift end for the fox so as to make the necessary experience a brief as possible. And secondly, the control of fox populations help stop the livestock of farmers from being attacked and frightened. I know from first hand how seemingly callous the natural actions of a fox amongst poultry can be.

One thing I shall not do is try to convince you that the fox doesn't briefly suffer during a hunt or that the cow, if made aware, would agree to it's fate. But suffering and discomfort are best minimised through maintenance of animal welfare; abolition of meat eating or population control is by no means sufficiently justified by some unpleasantness. In short, life is not all cotton wool and candy sticks and trying to convince ourselves otherwise is just plain daft. We should ameliorate what we can and accept what we must.