The role of government in protecting basic rights
Governments are there to protect the basic rights of their citizens. The basis of human rights is freedom and equality. We think that we also have to draw a line for people who violate the interests of animals.
Mink farming: a clear case of rights violation
Rearing minks for their fur is an even clearer example of rights violation than what is happening in intensive cattle farming. The economic interests of the mink farmer cannot in any way be classified as a reasonable and just cause. Minks are robbed of its freedom purely because their furs are worth money, even though wearing fur is pure luxury. Keeping minks is therefore an immoral situation.
Subsidies and democratic fairness
Furthermore, the government is keeping intensive cattle farming in existence with subsidies. This is undemocratic, because the consumer is basically paying ahead on meat prices. It is much fairer to pay fewer taxes and a higher price for meat and dairy. Only then will the consumer threshold to select alternatives for products from industrial farming be lowered.
Political principles and animal protection
We expect politicians to realize the soul of their basic assumptions, whether they are Christian, social or liberal. All these basic assumptions are based on principles, which at heart also protect the freedom of individuals. Animals too should get this protection. We should expect politicians to stick to these principles in their policies, and put a stop to wrongs that cross a moral border.
Taking responsibility seriously
The question is whether politicians still take this task and their responsibility seriously. As voters we should once again vote for politicians who know what morality entails and how this should be translated into policies. Of course we don't want to go back to the petty bourgeois (liberty limiting) morality that characterized our country until the seventies.
Freedom and equality as the soul of morality
We have to reassess that freedom and equality form the soul of morality and we have to make sure that the conclusion we take from it does not have a dogmatic character. We have to dare stand up for what remains. |
