The Animal Activist Handbook

    The Animal Activist Handbook (by Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich) holds many useful pockets of truth and pragma amidst some arguably more obvious pieces of advice. I particularly enjoyed reading it because I personally feel as if when I gain more and more earnest conviction for what I believe in, the more my passion can radiate outwards to inspire others. This delightfully quick but very powerful read strengthened my conviction for helping animals in two crucial ways - it reiterated the extent of the suffering which animals are enduring this very moment, but it focused on how this should not be as overwhelming as we initially perceive it to be, because changing hearts and minds is more doable than we might assume.

Perhaps the part of the Handbook which resonated with me the most was the statement that "our lives should be an advertisement for a purpose driven life." I very much identify with the notion that we should live as if others would follow our example (check out the blogpost I wrote along the lines of this type of philosophy: http://humanwashingmachine.blogspot.com/2012/08/animal-rights-filtered-through-sartre.html), and the Handbook mentions how when trying to get others to do the same with regard to animal welfare, its as basic as helping people to understand that the compassionate choices we vegans and vegetarians hold dear to us are simple extensions of the values we all already hold. It demystifies, de-radicalizes, and eliminates the foreignness associated with eradicating meat from our diet. Since a cruelty-free lifestyle does not require one to "forsake modern life or overthrow a government," this method of helping others to see that society is designed to conceal the realities of meat, divorcing it from the actual animal, helps people to disassociate veg eating from connotations of extremism, militance, and unfeasibility.

There would be felony charges if what happens to farm animals happened to dogs and cats. Facts like this, compounded with the realization that the horrible videos we watch are just "discrete representations of continuous suffering" often take us down a dangerous path; I, for one, have often been too abrasive and confrontational with the people closest to me regarding vegetarianism/veganism. I can rationalize by saying my hostility was simply a means to a more ideal end, and I hold the people closest to me to higher standards (which is true and I don't regret it), but nonetheless, the Animal Activist Handbook highlights the importance of adopting an attitude of empathy instead of succumbing to a combative mindset. This could not be more crucial in today's society where stubbornness and enmity are all too pervasive and people revel in keeping up their defenses; kindness, understanding, and love are truly the only ways to win. The Handbook details an analysis of Malcom Gladwell's "Tipping Point" theory, looking into people who turned mere fads into deeply permeating trends, and, not surprisingly, those who held friendly, optimistic demeanors were consistently responsible for said feat. It is easier said than done, but if your motivation is derived from your awe-inspiring potential to make this world a more loving place, it is your obligation to sublimate your anger and disgust - it is your obligation to remain truly positive and hopeful.

Animal Rights Filtered Through Sartre

Is it ethical to inflict deliberate harm on a conscious, feeling creature? Does the benefit produced play a role in justifying the pain inflicted?

The philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre makes navigating through these complex questions more lucid. Sartre's "singular universal" principle explicates the notion that every exertion of our personal freedom has a universal dimension to it; thus, whenever faced with a choice of whether to respect the autonomy of or to inflict cruelty on a non-human animal, Sartre's principle, I feel, urges us to consider the ramifications of exerting dominion over another living being, as the universal implications of a single infringement on the rights of a living creature are far-reaching.

Sartre's "singular universal" principle could not be more pertinent to the issue of animal cruelty. The principle prescribes that in making a choice, we affirm the "rightness" of that course of action. Humans, as volitional beings, have a magnificent capacity to envision our lives the way we would like them to be, and we have the potential to change our situation for the better. Before all of this can take place, though, we must accept responsibility for ourselves and our choices. Sartre insists that we have not defined our character until we commit ourselves to a conscious course of action. The ethics of authenticity, in essence, denotes that we are the authors of our lives. That said, it is of utmost importance to consider the magnitude and implications of every choice we make, specifically with regard to the propagation of the dominion over other sentient creatures.

Interestingly, Sartre remarked that people unthinkingly distract themselves with habits and routines, as living consciously and deliberately is often a challenging task. What makes this way of living perhaps more difficult is the fact that as more meat is consumed, people become more distant from farming operations, so, arguably, it requires more effort to remain aware of where our meat comes from. Indeed, once in a while there is a landmark event which forces open the collective eyes of the population. Exploiting animals for entertainment is a centuries-long phenomenon, and yet the issue finally received the attention it deserved upon Michael Vick's dogfighting charges. The Hallmark Meat Company/Westland scandal led to Proposition 2 on California's 2008 ballot initiative (which, effective in 2015, will give factory farmed animals the right to stretch their limbs, stand up, and turn around). In light of the myriad distractions and obligations of modern society, the assignment of maintaining full awareness and consciousness in all our endeavors, although seemingly infeasible, could not be more urgent.  Sartre champions the notion of living life as if we are leading by example - or as if other people will be taking recommendations from us, stating, "for every man, everything happens as if all mankind had its eyes fixed on him and were guiding itself by what he does.” The tremendous nature of this responsibility necessitates that citizens take further steps to deliberate upon the ethics of their decisions with regard to animal welfare. If an individual, upon learning that the United States raises and kills ten billion animals a year in massive, industrial factory farms, continues to consume meat, he or she is neglecting their  responsibility to change the course of society for the better. If that individual continues to consume meat, he or she is affirming the rightness in allowing an animal to writhe and squeal and to experience something aversive to its nature.

Existentialism's first responsibility is to "make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him.” Compounding this sentiment with the "singular universal" principle leads to the postulate that man must understand how the progression of both his life and the world, in effect, rest on him. Therefore, if the propagation of dominionism - the notion that things only exist for our benefit - has been seen to affect society deleteriously, man's obligation is to forge personal endeavors to cease his participation in such practices. The idea that animals are commodities with only extrinsic or conditional value has not only caused undue suffering to innumerable creatures, but has percolated into mankind's abuses against nature as a whole. In according every sentient being the right not to be treated as a resource, we take part in thwarting the injurious process of self-glorification which directly leads to the exploitation of everything non-human. A practical example of implementing such ethics is as follows: an individual has a choice to purchase wheat and soy based meat facsimiles, in vitro tested cosmetics, synthetic fiber for clothing, and so on, with no sacrifice to his or her quality of life. The conscious decision to invest in such products sends a message to the involved industries, competing industries, and future prospective buyers that it is ethically offensive to exploit animals even if there exists an economic benefit to humans; it issues a declaration that it is morally reprehensible for animals with cognitive, attitudinal, sensory, and volitional capacities to be abused simply because they are seen as intellectually less endowed or less autonomous. Thus, the individual successfully adheres to the "singular universal" in playing his or her respective role in shaping society, resulting from the determination to make conscious, engaged decisions.

In rejecting the exploitations of non-human animals, we recognize and act upon the need to abandon our prejudicial paradigms. Mankind's speciesist abuse of animals has directly coincided with our anthropocentric abuses toward once majestic landscapes, as well as the rest of nature. Therefore, in exercising more ethically sound actions toward non-human animals, we make a positive, beneficial use of the "singular universal" principle, as distorted moral relationships toward animals percolate and transcend into distorted, harmful relationships toward other sectors of the world. Many animals, like humans, feel pain, pleasure, remember the past, anticipate the future, and act intentionally to secure what they want in the present. It is our duty to treat them with respect, as, perhaps, in according dignity and reverence to creatures and landscapes which were here before mankind, respect instead of exploitation will become the norm for inter-species relationships, interpersonal relationships, and man's relationship with the environment.