On “Ethics That Come Out of Your Wallet”

Zoe Williams’ commentary, "Jamie’s Fowl Sanctimony" in this morning’s Guardian Unlimited raises some obvious questions, but it’s the ones Williams inadvertently raises that are really interesting.

Let’s deconstruct:

• Chef Jaimie Oliver and farmer Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (among others) have been protesting the horrors of factory farming (battery chickens, in particular). Supermarkets braced for the worst, yet sales of chicken actually increased a bit.
• Williams writes: "So, what are we supposed to make of this? That, even knowing all we know, we are too hardhearted and greedy to act upon it, and we find it incredibly easy to disassociate the hateful life of the creature from eating its meat? To put it even more simply, we are bad people, except those who are buying Label Anglais from the Harvey Nichols food hall at £25 a pop, who are good people."
• The point becomes that what apparently is the moral choice is more expensive and fewer people can afford it. That’s no big deal for Jamie Oliver, as he’s rich and famous. ("And why is he loaded? Because a) he makes quite a lot of money entertaining us by gassing boy chicks, and b) he hoovers up that much and more again by advertising for Sainsbury’s, which has been one of the driving forces behind this cheap food since mass production began.") Ouch. Looks like the jig is up for Oliver.
• Williams continues, "The fact is, ethics that come out of your wallet are not ethics. All these catchwords that supposedly convey sensitivity to the environment, to animals, to the developing world – fair trade, organic, free range, food miles etc – are just new ways to buy your way into heaven, the modern equivalent of the medieval pardon." Exactly. Rather than asking for/purchasing a pardon for doing something you shouldn’t be doing, how about not doing it in the first place? How about not eating animals at all? Veganism instantly addresses the use of animals and you don’t even need to pay a premium to do it! Sure, you can buy a flight TerraPass and fly whenever you want, allegedly carbon-neutralizing your travel. Or you can not fly and therefore not create anything to (pay a premium to) neutralize.
• Finally, "Anyone with a serious interest in this would be lobbying the legislature; arguing to tighten laws on animal cruelty. When we just preach to each other, it turns into the most undignified scramble – who can afford to be the most lovely?" Now, if someone were to talk Williams through the concept of sentience and discuss dominance and control and nonviolence, perhaps the idea of animal cruelty wouldn’t appear to be the problem (she can be reached at mszoewilliams@yahoo.co.uk). I’ll rewrite her conclusion. Anyone with a serious interest in ending cruelty to animals should go vegan and educate others about veganism. I’m not talking about preaching; I’m talking about guiding others, step-by-step, through the realities of animal use that they haven’t thought about. If cruelty is bad, once you become aware of all that is involved in creating animals for food (etc…), you have no logical choice but to admit that using animals is cruel and therefore bad. Luckily, there’s a swift, easy solution.
  

Veganism isn’t an ethic that comes out of your wallet. And it has the added bonus of being good for both your wallet and your conscience.