Exceptionnally here is an important list to convey!
This is more important than anything else!
Because it’s intorable cruelty made on innocent creatures must definitely disappear.
Because we need to know and choose to continue using these brands products or not.We did not hesitate to give our “boost” for animal rights.
Of course we hope you do the same.
Because anti-cruelty and respect for animal life is linked to human life!
Vegetarism, veganism are the future and philosophy of tomorrow.
But this is only a parenthesis!
We continue art, entertainment, and culture.
Why move towards a vegetarian nutrition?
The first is that the animals we swallow are sensitive and conscious. They are also, like us, capable of experiencing emotions. In a society where we sacrificed cute kittens, we paradoxically close our eyes to the billions of animals killed each year unnecessarily.
Secondly, and not least, livestock has a catastrophic effect on the planet. It is responsible for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions (more than transport) and 80% of deforestation in the Amazon. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) submitted a few months ago to the Minister of Ecology also calls for a reduction in our consumption of animal products to combat Climate change.
Finally, reducing meat consumption can be beneficial to health. According to a recent study carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA), iron contained in red meat would be “the main factor involved in the promotion of colon cancer”. In 2013, the Australian government recognized in its nutrition guide the health benefits of plant nutrition.
Thinking about it, moving towards a food without animal products is more like common sense for both animals and the planet and for future generations. In addition, there is no question of sacrificing its culinary pleasure, given the countless possibilities offered by vegan cuisine. Today, it is necessary to admit that our gastronomy must adapt to the ethical requirements of our time.
_The animal exploitation or the banality of the evil._
Recently, the National Assembly granted the animal the possibility of being at the same time a living being and endowed with sensitivity, uprooting it from its obsolete category of “movable property” or even “building”. The amendment, however, states that “subject to the laws protecting them, animals are subject to the regime of tangible property”.
With the blow of a magic wand, the same animals, now alive and sensitive, will remain in the category of goods. No need to devote an article to demonstrate the absurdity and futility of a Such an operation. Some will see in this non-event a
Progress, a symbolic recognition. Rather, it seems that this legal arrangement will in no way benefit the first concerned: animals. The reason is that the animal issue, and more particularly the question of their exploitation and their killing, is not the subject of sufficiently serious debate within Institutions, whether in our departments, in Parliament or in universities. We have long endeavored to define the animal, what it evokes to us, what it represents to us, what brings us closer to it, without, however, adequately crossing the barrier of underlying and yet essential moral questions. What explains such disdain? In reality, our coercive relationship with the animal frightens us, evoking a form of domination that we have long legitimized. So we turn a blind eye to everyday violence by always using false alibis in order not to desecrate the sanctuary of habits.
_The culture of indifference_
And if finally the problem was our inability to think?
Is not this “inability to think”, the fuel that drives the pitiless machine of animal exploitation? Does it not explain our indifference to the violence imposed on animals? When we sketch this problem, it is easier to pretend not to be affected by this suffering, even if we
Allow us, from time to time, to move freely for the
Made to certain so-called familiar animals. Yet we participate and encourage, through this indifference, a system that institutionalizes and legitimizes, with the support of countless
Pretexts, legal violence. Without going so far as to qualify those who are not interested in the animal condition of the Nazis, it seems clear, as Isaac Bashevis Singer emphasized, that “for these creatures all humans are Nazis”.
This parallel is not absurd. We can always reassure ourselves by trying to explain, as far as possible, the exploitation of animals, even though it is not necessary in our society. Nevertheless, we can never justify, in the eyes of the
Animals, the fatal fate which we have reserved for them, as well as the benefit which we have derived from it.
The origins of “metaphysical humanism”
Those who will be shocked by this comparison between human genocide and animal genocide, this “eternal Treblinka”, show a speci fi c denial. Like those who have proclaimed themselves superior,
In view of their “race”, specists encourage and legitimize, through their indifference, the superiority of the human species over all
Others, what Pierre Rouget, in a recently published book, calls “metaphysical humanism”.
“The frontier which he [metaphysical humanism]
Instituted, was born, […] of a coup de force, and rests on nothing
In fact, only the simple law of the strongest. In the dialogue of
Plato entitled Politics, one of the interlocutors made
To note wisely that if the cranes had been consulted to find out which species surpassed all the others and had to enjoy a special status, no doubt they would have replied “the cranes”. We, the human cranes, because we have the faculty
Rhetoric and we know how to show bad faith, we answered “man”.
Moreover, this denial is manifested by the negation in the animal of any “inherent value”, in the words of Tom Regan, who passes through the possibility of being “subject-of-life”, with Beliefs, desires, perception, emotional life, etc. And this, regardless of the usefulness they have in the eyes of human subjects.
Being “subject-of-life” is the leisure for these animals to persevere in their own existence.
However, it is common to hear that, ultimately, our choices and habits, such as food, concern us and that no one is able to express a right of control over them. This statement is correct if one considers that the animal has no “inherent value” and that its life matters little. But if it be admitted that the animal is a living being endowed with sensibility, and must therefore be the object of our consideration.