Response to Emily Burke

Emily posed this question after responding to Skyla's blog:

If the Extension Thesis (mentioned in the Animal Ethics Reader) makes sense in theory, why is it not usually accurate in mainstream resistance to oppression?

This is a question that I have often asked myself, though never before in the context of animal ethics. I consider myself an empathetic person and wish that I could personally be involved with every single organization that betters the lives of humans and animals alike. The fact of the matter is that I can only do so much. I think this is the case for many people.

Emily mentioned that people tend to be only concerned with the oppression that they have personally been witness to. I think this is a very blanket claim to make. I for one have never personally experienced child soldiers but I have a very special place in my heart for Invisible Children.

I find it a bit harsh to say that people throw one cause under the bus in favor of another one. As an activist, I've learned that you can't lobby for every cause that you care about and you can't save everyone. It's just not possible and that's unfortunate. However, I think it's amazing that there are so many people who care passionately for even one issue. It is all too easy to get lost in the shuffle of one's own life and forget the trifles of others. Anyone who takes even a little bit of time out of their live to devote to others deserve praise, not condemnation.

In regards to Animal Rights, I don't pretend to remember how people can recognize the cognitive ability of animals and witness their suffering but still consume them. The bottom line is, for some people, that animals taste good. Most people don't kill the animals that they consume so it's easy to forget their suffering.

My question for this blog is how do we justify being a country known for our philanthropy and action against human oppression when we have so little protection for animal rights?