As vegans our responsibility to the animals commonly known as "pests" is to keep them out or remove them from our homes peacefully where practicable. But in defence of our livelihoods, our health, and wellbeing, violence is permissible. Even in trying to keep other animals out, we cause some harm; The metal used to make the mesh that keeps mosquitos out of my house was mined, no doubt harming worms, ants and other insects in the process. In refusing rats refuge in our homes, bins and silos, we leave them out for predators (cats, owls, and hawks), or to starve in an urban world not made for their survival.
The warmth of human homes makes it possible for cockroaches to survive cold winters, indeed they come for food, shelter and water, and not to spite us; in kicking them out we kill them indirectly, granting them a slow and painful death. Even in trying to preserve the life of a pest, we sentence them to a life of destitution, outside of the comforts of a human home, to a natural life of certain suffering. Yet the vegan thing is not to let them all in, and share your food with the rats, ants and cockroaches. Yet critical non vegans would have us believe that we have to drink tea soaked in rat piss, eat cookies infested with ants, and endure a thousand mosquito bites in order to be properly and consistently vegan. As a vegan, I say nay.
Fundamentally I don't see an ant as having the same level of worth as a cow, and that moral evaluation is subjective. What I do however believe is that a cow has much more moral value than that of a burger, and likewise I believe ants are worth more than an exotic delicacy.
There is a solid difference between killing animals for food and kill ants that seek warmth in your bed. It's a difference that's very clear to me, that you don't need to kill animals for food, but you do need to kill those ants if you want to get a good night's sleep.
Non vegans build up this false idea of what veganism is, then attack us with it, using that false standard to judge vegans with. Then when we inevitably don't measure up to it, they use that to discount veganism as something no one could possibly live by, accuse us of cherry-picking, and vindicate themselves in their non-veganism. The false idea is that veganism necessitates that we treat every single animal with dignity and respect equal to that of a human being, regardless of the circumstances and our differences. But that's simply not realistic. It's about minimizing harm and eliminating exploitation as much as possible, not creating a utopian world or a heaven on earth where no animal is ever killed or harmed in any way.
Veganism is not about purity or pacifism, it's not about causing zero harm, it's not a new age rebrand of Jainism where you need to sweep the ground before you walk.
In simple terms it is that the life of an animal is worth more than a tasty meal or a fashionable purse. It's not the belief that all animals are equal in all respects, especially in moral worth; moral value is a subjective calculation. It is the truth that we do not need to use animals to survive, nor to survive better, nor to survive comfortably, and therefore that exploiting and killing an animal for food, clothing or convenience is unnecessary, wrong and for these and analogous reasons it is immoral.
It's important to recognize the nuances and complexities involved in veganism, especially when it comes to interactions with so-called "pests." While we strive to live in harmony with other beings, practicality and necessity sometimes require difficult decisions. Killing is a part of life, and surely even vegans have to kill animals sometimes, but it's the reason and scale that makes the difference. We kill in defence of the food we need, not to make a meal out of a dead body. We kill in defence of our skin, not to wear someone else's. We kill to safeguard our health, not to destroy it directly or indirectly through feasting on another's flesh.
Comments