Inconsistent Views Towards Animal Rights

Among other reasons, I became a vegan because I cannot justify needlessly killing an animal. If I needed to kill and eat animals to survive, I would. However, we do no longer need to kill animals to survive. A person can just as easily survive without eating meat, while remaining just as healthy.

In fact, we have the technology to essentially create meat without killing animals, considering how simple of a substance meat is. We recreate meat in the form of meat substitutes, such as soy burgers.

Despite their ability to live easily without killing animals for food, many people still choose to eat meat. These people do not grant animals the right to life. If a person murdered another person and then ate that other person, almost all people would adamantly oppose it. Meanwhile, these same people slaughter animals without giving it a second thought.

It is hard to understand why murdering a human is so objectionable while murdering an animal is not. Most of us vegans and animal rights supporters view that as very inconsistent.

The inconsistency of people's views towards animal rights goes further, though. While people carelessly murder animals because they like the taste of meat and the look of leather, these same people fall heads over heels about "cuter" animals. For example, pigs are generally smarter than dogs, but many people object to the idea of needlessly murdering and eating a dog.

People look at Michael Vick like he is a monster for organizing dog fights, which is utterly hypocritical and inconsistent. Fighting dogs probably do not suffer any more than factory-farmed chickens who are debeaked, stuffed into an over-packed cage, and eventually slaughtered. Why do people think it is fine to make animals suffer for the enjoyment of leather or the taste of a meaty burger, but not for the entertainment of a dog fight?

Of course, many people have inconsistent views when it even comes to entertainment and animal rights. Having dogs fight or cock fights for entertainment is seen as wrong and often made illegal, but hunting for entertainment is a common pastime.

Some may try to excuse the inconsistency by saying that killing is not as horrible as making the animal suffer while staying alive. However, there is still more inconsistency here. Why then do they not have a problem with animal testing? Animal testers carelessly torture animals with unsafe and dangerous products to make perfumes and other needless products. If needlessly torturing animals for petty pleasures is so objectionable to these people, it is inconsistent for them to buy beauty products that have been tested on animals.

Simply put, most people base their views regarding animal rights on emotions rather than on rationality, which results in irrational inconsistencies. Many people do not want to reconsider their inconsistent views regarding animal rights, because that would likely lead to giving up meat, leather, and other animal products.