Conflicts of Vital Interest

In the fight against animal suffering, if we really want to help animal beings it is essential to take into account a fundamental distinction between what is done optionally, without vital necessity, and what is done obligatorily, in an inescapable conflict of vital (life or death) interests like the one between an obligate carnivore and its prey.

Tigers cannot survive if they do not capture and eat their prey. It is a biological imperative for their survival and health. Humans are not obligate carnivores. They can survive in full health today without consuming animal beings; it is not a biological imperative for them.

I was present once at a public event for animal rights defenders. A young vegan asked a question timidly: “I am a vegan and an activist defender of animal beings. But I have a chronic condition that requires me to take a drug that contains an animal component. What should I do? “

Most of those present replied, almost unanimously, “Take your medicine. Animal beings as well as human defenders of animal beings need your help. You are not helping them by sacrificing your life. It is a vital necessity for you.”

According to all  current scientific knowledge, vaccination saves lives. It is, therefore, a vital necessity. We can hope that one day there will be vaccines that no longer require any animal component. But in the meantime what is urgent is to put an end to the gigantic majority of animal suffering which is unnecessary – hence already completely gratuitous today – before entering the complex and tragic domain of conflicts of vital necessity between sentient beings.

— French version —

Conflits d’intĂ©rĂȘt vital

Dans la lutte contre la souffrance animale, si on veut vraiment aider les ĂȘtres animaux il est essentiel de tenir compte d’une distinction primordiale entre ce qui se fait facultativement, sans nĂ©cessite vitale, et ce qui se fait obligatoirement, dans un conflit de nĂ©cessitĂ©s vitales comme celui entre un carnivore obligatoire et sa proie. 

Un tigre ne peut pas survivre s’il ne mange pas sa proie. S’est un impĂ©ratif biologique pour sa survie et sa santĂ©. Les humains ne sont pas des carnivores obligatoires. Ils peuvent survivre en pleine santĂ© sans consommer les ĂȘtres animaux; ça ne leur est pas un impĂ©ratif biologique.

J’étais prĂ©sent une fois Ă  un Ă©vĂ©nement publique de dĂ©fenseurs des ĂȘtres animaux. Une jeune vĂ©gane a posĂ© une question timidement: « Je suis vĂ©gane et militante dĂ©fenseure des ĂȘtres animaux. Mais j’ai une maladie chronique pour laquelle il faut que je prenne un mĂ©dicament qui contient une composante d’origine animale. Que dois-je faire? » 

On lui a rĂ©pondu, presque unanimement: « Prend ton mĂ©dicament. Les ĂȘtres animaux ainsi que les dĂ©fenseurs humains des ĂȘtres animaux ont besoin de ta protection. Tu ne les aides pas en sacrifiant ta vie. C’est une nĂ©cessitĂ© vitale pour toi. »

D’aprĂšs toutes les connaissances scientifiques actuelles, la vaccination sauve les vies. Il s’agit, donc, de la nĂ©cessitĂ© vitale. Il est Ă  espĂ©rer qu’un jour il y aura les vaccins qui ne nĂ©cessitent plus aucune composante d’origine animale. Mais entre temps l’urgence est de mettre fin Ă  cette gigantesque majoritĂ© des souffrances animales qui sont inutiles — donc  dĂ©jĂ  complĂštement gratuites aujourd’hui — avant de rentrer dans le domaine complexe et tragique des conflits de nĂ©cessitĂ©s vitales entre les ĂȘtres sensibles. 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.