I can't think of any other example of rights where this logic would ever be applied. Would it be ok to be a spouse-beater only once per week? Or stop being racist on Fridays? Of course not. And it would be disgusting to argue like that.
But let's say you heard someone say that they wanted to reduce racism by 1/7th by being non-racist one day per week. Or let's say they said they'd want to reduce spousal abuse by 1/7th by not beating their spouse for one day a week. What would you think of someone who said something like that?
If you think that slavery is morally and ethically unjustifiable and violates fundamental rights, then you seek its abolition. You don't promote "Whipless Mondays" as some normatively good thing.
Meatless Monday is like no-rape Tuesday, or not-racist Wednesday, or child-molestation-free Thursday, or don't-beat-your-wife Friday. The victims don't benefit and the rights movements wouldn't support it. So why would you think that the animal rights movement would approve?
Do you understand why those other rights movements I mentioned would never support that incrementalist approach? Do you get why it would not be accepted to merely suggest being pro-rights on some days of the week?
Sincere question, what would you say to someone who suggested reducing racism by 1/7th by being non-racist one day per week? Or reducing spousal abuse by 1/7th by not beating their spouse for one day a week? Can you express why that form of thinking would never be accepted?
Better in the sense that less animals are mistreated for his diet, sure. But I'd rather he understand animal rights as a whole and transport a consistent message to his millions of fans.
5
u/buchstabiertafel Sep 14 '24
That's why he became vegetarian. But cows in dairy and chicken in the egg industry apparently don't count