// update on ethics of animal law // i went in feeling very much that having animal welfare/rights as any kind of priority is something exclusive to those with privilege – u need a level of financial/ economic/ social stability to expend energy on something ultimately ‘trivial’ in the scheme of human existence and suffering.
however…. this point of view turned out to be a little self-serving in the end. the corporatisation of animal industries (very much a new phenomenon prioritised in the US and implemented in Australia in the last few decades) into a profit-hungry, capitalistic power-house that enshrines acts of cruelty as a way of existence is ultimately created by and for those same privileged individuals. The power structures that middle-class Westerners rely on both to uphold their own status and inflict suffering on others, are the same structures used to justify institutionalised cruelty towards animals.
so arguing that prioritising animal rights subtly implies a disregard of human rights is… true but not necessarily valuable. It takes away a sense of responsibility that ultimately rests on our shoulders. Tackling capitalist structures that are by nature harmful, with emphasis on ALL individuals and not allowing animals to take socio-political precedence, is a necessary responsibility for those positioned to do so. Especially in a legal context, the current regime is an abject failure and not only harmful to our animal friends, but to ourselves and the moral dilemma it puts us in as individuals daily.
Hmmmm. Still conflicted and unsure of where from here, but of the view that unnecessary suffering is hard to justify, no matter how u look at it.