Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
There are things that prevents us from addressing everything at the same time, the most important one being time itself, closely followed by resources available, mostly manpower and brainpower. Deciding on the best course isn’t done in a snap, it takes time to debate, time to research, time to convince, time that is not being spent on “everything else”. Sure, there can be synergies in some actions and laws, but to think that you can do one that is all-encompassing is delusional.
How important any one matter is more important “right now”, which I alluded to in my comment, also prevents addressing “everything at the same time”. Maybe the person cares about animal rights, but would much rather see time and effort being directed at something else right now, which they deem more important. “I can’t afford rent and the govt wants me to starve, why should I focus on animal rights right now?”
Good luck addressing all of the world’s injustices at the same time.
In fact, it is easier to criticize exploitation, domination, and suffering as a whole than to take the complicated detour of first restricting who is entitled to empathy and solidarity. So in a way, empathetic people make it easier for themselves. They are simply against injustice in general. And I don’t think that makes anything more complex or energy- and timeconsuming either. For the exact same reason that I have a problem with Nazis, I am also in favor of transgender people being allowed to live freely, of the means of production being socialized, and of the exploitation of animals ending: Because I find injustice and inequality wrong in general. I wonder more how people can manage this intellectual balancing act of cherry-picking here.
On the other hand, they are not alone in this. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, whom we both know today as pioneers of liberalism, made money from the slave trade. George Washington, who spoke of freedom and equality for all, owned slaves himself. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most important philosopher of the Enlightenment, even justified slavery philosophically. Today, this seems hypocritical to us. But back then, it was not particularly unusual, because anyone who was not white was simply one of “the others” to whom none of this applied. The othering of all non-white people was simply part of the unquestioned hegemonic worldview of the time.
But sooner or later, the same thing will happen to animals as happened to non-white people. The othering of animals, which makes the cruelty to them socially legitimate, will no longer be accepted by anyone who is not completely cold-hearted. People of the future will look back on us with horror.
There are things that prevents us from addressing everything at the same time, the most important one being time itself, closely followed by resources available, mostly manpower and brainpower. Deciding on the best course isn’t done in a snap, it takes time to debate, time to research, time to convince, time that is not being spent on “everything else”. Sure, there can be synergies in some actions and laws, but to think that you can do one that is all-encompassing is delusional.
How important any one matter is more important “right now”, which I alluded to in my comment, also prevents addressing “everything at the same time”. Maybe the person cares about animal rights, but would much rather see time and effort being directed at something else right now, which they deem more important. “I can’t afford rent and the govt wants me to starve, why should I focus on animal rights right now?”
Good luck addressing all of the world’s injustices at the same time.
In fact, it is easier to criticize exploitation, domination, and suffering as a whole than to take the complicated detour of first restricting who is entitled to empathy and solidarity. So in a way, empathetic people make it easier for themselves. They are simply against injustice in general. And I don’t think that makes anything more complex or energy- and timeconsuming either. For the exact same reason that I have a problem with Nazis, I am also in favor of transgender people being allowed to live freely, of the means of production being socialized, and of the exploitation of animals ending: Because I find injustice and inequality wrong in general. I wonder more how people can manage this intellectual balancing act of cherry-picking here.
On the other hand, they are not alone in this. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, whom we both know today as pioneers of liberalism, made money from the slave trade. George Washington, who spoke of freedom and equality for all, owned slaves himself. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most important philosopher of the Enlightenment, even justified slavery philosophically. Today, this seems hypocritical to us. But back then, it was not particularly unusual, because anyone who was not white was simply one of “the others” to whom none of this applied. The othering of all non-white people was simply part of the unquestioned hegemonic worldview of the time.
But sooner or later, the same thing will happen to animals as happened to non-white people. The othering of animals, which makes the cruelty to them socially legitimate, will no longer be accepted by anyone who is not completely cold-hearted. People of the future will look back on us with horror.