Opinion Article on Animal Abuse

Opinion Article on Animal Abuse

The immorality of consumption and animal abuse

Mahatma Gandhi affirmed that “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which it treats the animals”, Meaning by this that the way we relate to others species it is a reflection of the degree of cultural refinement of our societies. And although in principle it is easy to agree with the Indian leader, it is not so easy when it implies a radical change in our lifestyle habits, such as eating, entertainment or consumption.

The industries Modernists have been adept at hiding from us the way in which they make their products: with what they make them, in what way, how they test them. And we, consumers inveterately, we play the same game, since deep down we prefer not to know.

We cover our eyes to the food industry, whose animals are raised in cruel and unsanitary conditions, and then swarmed with antibiotics to fight the infections that their own model of life generates. We cover our eyes in front of the makeup testing laboratories, where animals are forced to suffer product after product so that you or I can use a shampoo with rinsing without running the risk of an allergic reaction, since already a hundred animals had them in our place.

We cover our eyes, because deep down we do not care, or because we feel that there is nothing to do, that this relentless industry is the same that gives us work, takes us ready chicken to the supermarket or lets us believe that we sport the same hairstyle as that movie star who makes the shampoo the advertising.

What does this say about us, in Gandhi's terms? What does it say about our morality, our empathy, our vision of life beyond our species?

Our animal victims

I do not propose a return to the caverns, nor the strictest vegetarianism, nor a life enemy of hygiene and customs of the time. Those are arguments with whom any attempt to think in moral terms of what is clearly a monstrous reality is often ridiculed: we treat animals as merchandise.

And that is something that a couple of centuries ago we hardly did with human beings as well: we reduce them to slavery. Only in the case of animals it is much worse: we push them from birth to the handicap, to a place of inferiority and suffering, because they do not even have a voice to express to us, in terms that we want to understand, that their suffering is identical to our. The slave at least had the word, with which he could curse the master and swear vengeance on him. Our animal victims don't even have the comfort of rage.

That we humans should feed on plants and animals, it is a reality that for some is inescapable. A practice, moreover, that modernity did not invent but has accompanied us since we emerged on the face of the planet and that we even share with the animals themselves. We cannot at the same time consider ourselves superior, take the place of command on the planet, and treat them in a way that we do not reserve even the most infamous of our species.

If they exist human rights, if we really consider them the foundation of a moral existence in front of our fellow men, how is it that we have not done the same with the universal rights of animals, the vast majority of whom suffer like us, feel like us and die like us?

That is something for which the modern world has no answer.

References:

• "Opinion journalism" in Wikipedia.
• "Cruelty to animals" in Wikipedia.
• "Universal Declaration of Animal Rights" in Affinity Foundation.
• "Animal abuse" in Telesur.

What is an opinion piece?

A opinion piece it's a kind of journalistic text in which the author exposes to the reader his personal position on a specific topic. It is essentially about argumentative textsThey use the information to promote a perspective, that is, to convince the reader to take their point of view. For this reason, they are usually signed and of a personal nature (with the exception of press editorials, in which reflects the institutional position of the newspaper), since the reader may agree or disagree with what is stated in them. it states.

Follow with: