When you find something that feels right, feels good and feels desperately important, once you believe in something, you push it forward everyday, in some way. You give all you've got, to drag it and drive it forward! You do this because you can't stomach the idea of living your life without seeing your vision materialize. Surely this is what it is to have a dream and to have a dream come true.. Once you find something that makes you feel this way, you've found your calling, I believe. To live all of your days without honoring this 'purpose' is to live unnoticed, unchallenged, un-celebrated, immemorable, but most importantly, it is to leave this life no better than you found it. It must be, ultimately, to die as though you never lived at all..
Love heals. If you doubt it, you need more of it. How do you get more of it? By giving more of it. Love is not just for romantic relationships, not just for 'family'. Love is not just for people. Beneath the colourful emotions, socialized behaviours and cultured concepts of being 'partners' in love, love is the recognition of our own soul matter in another being. The more recognition, the greater the degree of attachment. Every body, every living thing on earth is made up of essentially the same energy and particle and spirit matter. Here's the magic. We recognise this bond wherever we look for it. Next time you see a leaf, consider the veins. Next time you're in the company of an animal consider the sensation, (sight, sound, feeling,) of breathing. Look into the eyes of every creature whenever, wherever possible and be open to the recognition of all that we, ourselves are made up of. Take a detailed account of every mother-infant relationship, every friendship, every co-existence, every life bound spirit. It's been said before that love knows no boundaries..
It is a federal system of sadistic torture, vivisection, and animal genocide, which has been carried on for decades under the fraudulent guise of respectable medical research. And nobody on the outside knows, or wants to know, or is willing to find out. My parents, my friends, my teachers, wouldnt listen to me, or suggested that if it was bothering me that much I just had to quit the job. Just like that. As if that would have solved anything. As if I could ever live with such cowardice. You can't imagine, or maybe you can, how many people are convinced - without knowing the first thing about it - Animal research is essential. Americans have been hopelessly brainwashed on this issue. The animal rights people, by and large, acknowledge the essential futility of trying to change the system. So they address the smaller issues, fighting for legislation which would provide one extra visit per week to the labs by a custodian of the US dept of agriculture. Or demanding that a squirrel monkey be given an extra 12 square inches in his holding pen, before being led to the slaughter. That sort of thing. For whomever, and whatever it's worth, I hope my little write up is clear. I dont have the guts to do whats necessary. I pray there's someone out there who does. God help all of us.
Of us, whether vivisector or vegan, have been subject to mechanisms undercutting sympathy for animals. How long and to what extent we submit to these mechanisms is not a matter of rationality: to cut off our feelings and support animal exploitation rational, given societal expectations and sanctions; but to assert our feelings and oppose animal exploitation is also rational, given the pain involved in losing our natural bonds with animals. So our task is not to pass judgment on others' rationality, but to speak honestly of the loneliness and isolation of anthropocentric society, and of the damage done to every person expected to hurt animals.
Is it possible that future generations will regard our present agribuisness and eating practices in much the same way we now view Nero's entertainments or Mengele's experiments? My own initial reaction is that such a comparison is hysterical, extreme - and yet the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals are less morally important than human behings; and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I haven't succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.
From a nonpatriarchal metaethical standpoint, however, Singer's and Regan's theoretical similarities are as significant as their differences. In particular, both Singer's utilitarian theory and Regan's rights approach are developed within a framework of patriarchal norms, which includes the subordinatin of emotion to reason, the privileging of abstract principles of conduct, the perception of ethical discussion as a battle between adversaries, and the presumption that ethics shoudl function as a means of social control.