|
【Real Question to You】
To illustrate the point that not a small number of people require firsthand experience to understand Trumpism’s cruelty, the recent general election in Canada serves as yet another example. First, looking only at the outcome, the April election yielded a positive result with the defeat of Conservatives, the Canadian version of Trumpism. However, it’s not quite that simple when we look beneath the surface. In fact, until January when Trump took office in the US, Canada’s Conservatives were leading the Liberals by a whopping margin; nearly 30%pts ahead in the polls. Dubbed a “mini-Trump,” the Conservative leader was also popular, aggressively pushing for similarly cruel nationalistic policies. But once Trump’s hostile tariffs and remarks like “Canada should be the 51st US state” were directed at them, the Canadian people came to experience firsthand the cruelty of Trumpism. This lived experience led to a realization of how shameful their own “mini-Trump” is to direct similar cruelties toward people of other countries. The sense of reality sunk in, and public opinion quickly shifted. Just 3 months later in the general election, the Liberals won, and mini-Trump himself even lost his own seat in the parliament. To experience the harm of cruel policies firsthand. Or even just to feel their reality was enough to bring about such dramatic change. Here, one may be tempted to say, “All’s well that ends well.” But, instead, let us be mature enough to understand the suffering of others without needing to experience it firsthand. Because if we only understand after the harm, sometimes it’s too late. For example, consider the gruesome invasions carried out by Nazi Germany and Militarist Japan during World War II. Realizing the horror only after the fact, most people would agree, was tragically too late. And today, Trumpism evokes the fascism of the Nazis and Militarist Japan. It’s becoming increasingly clear as Trumpism now openly supports neo-Nazis and uses Nazi-style salutes. It’s simply replaced the Nazi swastika with MAGA red hats. Through intimidation and threats, Trump administration suppresses people’s voice against its cruel policies. It’s reminiscent of Putin administration in Russia, or Xi Jinping’s in China. And the common thread running through them all is fascism. People often say things like “Democracy is the problem,” or “Socialism/Communism is the problem.” In all fairness, each system has it’s own flaws. But the truly serious problem is when any social system is taken over by fascism, which seeks to force people into obedience through authoritarian power. What happens to people when placed under fascism? Do we support or duck our heads in fear of the authority and its supporters? Stay quiet and do nothing in fear of retaliation? These questions start to swirl around in our heads. Or do we rise to meet our moral obligation, to have the courage and conviction to say "No!" to what's unjust? Speak up and say what’s right is right, even if it means going against those in power? Now, just like in the past, that same courage and conviction are being called for in each and every one of us. And to close this post, once again, let’s quote the words from 8 years ago on this blog: “When you’re in the worst of all situations, it may feel like an eternal tunnel of darkness. However, one day not too long from now, that tunnel will end, and you'll emerge into the daylight. That is, time will pass. And remember that the real question being asked at this moment is about your own moral conscience. That question is: once it's over, what kind of person will you have become?” [See #2] Read Previous: Trumpism is Cruel Immaturity (2)【Firsthand Experience】 Complete Series: Trumpism is Cruel Immaturity (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Morality 【Firsthand Experience】
The Trump administration’s countless persecutions, threats, and cruel policies. Do the Trump voters need to experience these harms firsthand to truly understand the cruelty of it all? That said, only US citizens have the right to vote in US elections, which makes experiencing the suffering of immigrants/refugees firsthand nearly impossible, unless they themselves are first-generation immigrants/refugees who’ve thereafter become US citizens. Moreover, Trump voters are largely comprised of White Americans, the racial majority in the country. This again makes experiencing the suffering of minorities firsthand rather limited from a racial perspective. But what about from a social perspective? For example, people struggling in poverty, or those who identify as LGBTQ, or those living with a disability. People in these situations, even if they belong to the racial majority, may experience firsthand the suffering of those who are significantly disadvantaged in our society, or born into less-fortunate circumstances. Moreover, in a sense, it’s also possible to “indirectly” experience the harm. For instance, over the past several decades, conservatives have promoted irresponsible tax cuts as part of their populist policies. And it’s a well-known fact that many American small business owners are conservative supporters primarily because of these tax cuts. Of course, with the far-right shift in today’s conservatism, many of these business owners have voted for Trump. On the other hand, it’s also a well-known fact that not a small number of these business owners hire undocumented immigrants to push wages low, to make extra profit for themselves. A blatant two-faced exploitation, they loudly profess the global far-right’s favorite slogan “Deport the illegal immigrants because they’re stealing jobs from us!” while simultaneously profiting by employing these immigrants. Not surprisingly, we hear about some of these small business owners in panic mode recently where their employees were forcibly deported due to the cruel Trump policy, the exact policy that they themselves so aggressively voted for. Perhaps, they didn’t think enough about what their favorite slogan really meant. What we’re starting to hear is simply the end result of their own shameless hypocrisy. Next, we also know that American farmers overwhelmingly voted for Trump. However, due to the Trump administration’s shortsighted tariffs, again the exact policy that they themselves so enthusiastically voted for, many American farmers who rely heavily on exports are now thrown into financial chaos as their major agricultural trade partners in China/Canada have cut business with them. And oh by the way, let’s also mention that American farmers have received huge government subsidies over the past several decades. Yet, when others in need of help ask for a similar aid, these farmers furiously bark, “Stop government waste!” This, too, is a shameless hypocrisy. Encouraged by this, the Trump administration mercilessly cut aid to food banks/shelters that support people struggling in poverty. Once again, perhaps they didn’t think enough about what their favorite mantra really meant. As a result, we now hear that many farmers, whose products ultimately supply these food banks/shelters, have suddenly lost their major source of income and are expecting even more government aid for themselves. This toxic pair of hypocrisy and choosing “Self-interest above all else” is a classic case of “As long as it’s fine for us” behavior. As a responsible adult, it’s awfully shameful. This, we must be fully aware. When we become aware of this, and when we accept the idea of “voter accountability,” it may be fair to say that Trump voters are suffering from the harms caused by their own votes. However, since this is a federal election, it’s unavoidable and yet unjust that even Harris voters are caught up in this mess created by Trump voters. Likewise, foreign nationals who legally stay in the US for study, work, or accompanying family members with valid visas, are also caught in the crossfire despite having no voting rights. The national popular votes in this presidential election were Trump 49.8% vs Harris 48.3%. A margin of 1.5%pts, roughly 2 million votes. It’s disheartening that such a narrow margin can create a complete opposite of “the liberal America that nurtures compassion through a global lens, and honestly works to help those in need.” [See＃110] We sincerely hope that Trump voters who chose “Self-interest above all else” won’t make this same mistake again. Read Next: Trumpism is Cruel Immaturity (3)【Real Question to You】 Read Previous: Trumpism is Cruel Immaturity (1)【Human Weakness】 Complete Series: Trumpism is Cruel Immaturity (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Morality 【Human Weakness】
Below are the words from 8 years ago on this blog, when the first Trump administration took office: “When you’re in the worst of all situations, you may feel it’s going to persist like an eternal tunnel of darkness. However, one day not too long from now, that tunnel will end, and you'll emerge into the daylight. That is, time will pass.” [See #2] Trumpism is like a collection of the ugliest parts of America, such as violence, discrimination, lies, hate, egoism, nationalism, and traditional privilege. It tears apart families of immigrants/refugees, and locks up in cages the crying children frightened to death. It's a dark tunnel that seems never-ending, tormenting people who are significantly disadvantaged in our society, or born into less-fortunate circumstances. The culmination of these cruel policies/actions came in 2020. In that year’s US presidential election, Biden defeated Trump by over 7 million votes. Not only Americans, but also many liberal people around the world breathed a sigh of relief, rejoicing, “Finally, we’re free from the worst situation!” [See #67] Having lost the election, Trump next incited his supporters to storm the US Capitol. What’s more, even after that, with no credible evidence to present and being rejected in all courts, he continued to spew lies, saying “there was fraud, I didn’t lose,” like a small kid not yet learned how to stomach a defeat. In the face of this toxic immaturity for such an old man, many who had originally voted for Trump were heard making excuses, saying “I didn’t know he was this pathetic; I never thought he would go so low.” But only four years later, here we are again, back to the “worst situation.” It’s truly a shame. One may argue that voters of the first Trump administration have a reasonable claim to “I didn’t know, I never thought.” But let’s be very clear; this time, that excuse will no longer hold. You can't escape your own hand in it this time by pretending, "I didn't think this was gonna get so bad." Because it’s now been a well-known fact that a rapist and convicted felon Donald Trump, who was found liable in a sexual assault lawsuit, is a pathologically cruel human being. If you still insist, “I didn’t know, I never thought,” then your own ignorance is to blame. Despite knowing fully of Trump’s cruelty, many voters of the second Trump administration ended up choosing “Self-interest above all else.” That is, no matter how much suffering/persecution is forced upon the minorities, LGBTQ people, immigrants, refugees, and others who live outside of the majority identity, the Trump voters chose to look the other way in exchange for their own extra layer of comfort and the sense of privilege. In this way, “Self-centered populism” like Trumpism feeds on human weakness, creeping into the weak minds, where it eventually morphs itself into fascism. And cynicism thrives on this weakness, eroding our sense of justice away, and spreading the ideas that prey on our fear, like “After all, humans are all selfish, so if we don’t prioritize our own interests, we'll only lose out.” All the while, new persecutions and threats have already begun. To make things worse, countless cruel policies are likely to unfold soon. Do the Trump voters need to experience these harms firsthand to truly understand the cruelty of it all? Read Next: Trumpism is Cruel Immaturity (2)【Firsthand Experience】 Complete Series: Trumpism is Cruel Immaturity (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Morality 【Nice Person】
A country that embodies safety/politeness, yet shuns away people in need of help around the world. A country that welcomes people in need of help, even when it means compromising on its own safety/politeness. A nice person is someone who tries best to accept and help others in real need--even when it’s inconvenient, or at times unpleasant. A nice country is where more people are practicing this nice person behavior--even when mixing people of diverse backgrounds can sometimes be quite messy. It can also be called a nice society. That is, even when people of different cultures/customs face a challenge to share and live together in the same place. Of course, safety is very important, and its compromise shouldn't be taken lightly. After all, peace is built upon a foundation of safety everywhere. However, ensuring safety only for ourselves is no doubt an “as long as it’s fine for us” behavior. And that’s not what nice people do. In Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Palestine, South Sudan, Myanmar, and more. Over 114 million people are displaced from their homes due to conflict/violence today, making it the worst in human history. Roughly 40% are children under the age of 18. One-third of the families can’t send their children to school, and only 10% can afford tuitions. Meanwhile, many of us enjoy the benefits of comfort simply because we’re born in a safe/prosperous country; to parents who are citizens of those fortunate countries. In contrast, many of us are shut out from sharing in on those benefits simply because we just happen to born in an impoverished nation or war zone; to parents who are citizens of such countries. Naturally, given that we’re all equal as humans, it’s unjust to be forced upon inborn inequities on the basis of place of birth or parental background. With this in mind, when we praise Japan today as a nice country, we’re essentially praising as nice people those who continue on with “as long as it’s fine for us” behavior while refusing/excluding others in serious need of help around the world. A truly nice country is one where people regularly engage in discussions about welcoming immigrants/refugees, nurture compassion through a global lens, deepen thoughts of helping those in need, and honestly work towards a more mature society. At least in a little more than half of America, we find hope in the liberal spheres of the society where people work hard to try to help immigrants/refugees looking for better life/future; where people are willing to take up that great challenge to make this world a better place for everyone. On the contrary, the conservative spheres of the society mostly represented by the Trump MAGA supporters making up a little less than half of America, insist on the polar opposite while desperately trying to return us to the idea of “as long as it’s fine for us.” In Japan, its government still refuses to adopt an official immigration policy, instead seeks to avoid tensions by closing its borders tight. Trying to advance the society that tends to avoid change, the liberal people work hard but are often shunned and, regrettably, are very few in number. The vast majority of people don’t particularly find the idea of “as long as it’s fine for us” to be a serious problem, perhaps not even aware of it, or even if they are aware, continue on with it, pretending as if people in need of help around the world don’t exist. When we accept people of different cultures/customs, welcome diversity with a big heart, and share/live together in the same place with people from various backgrounds. At times, we may feel that our hometown has changed so much, maybe even too much, from the “good ol’ days.” Perhaps, we may feel a kind of sadness, a sort of melancholy, an air of wistfulness suddenly well up. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make it right to continue on with “as long as it’s fine for us” behavior, just minding our own self-interests. To be sure, inclusivity is a very difficult task even with a big heart. Mixing people of diverse backgrounds to share/live together in a society can be quite messy at times. In spite of it all, let us have the courage to nurture compassion and welcome people in real need of help around the world. Read Previous: A Nice Country (1)【Safe & Polite】 Read Theme: Morality 【ALL Means Everyone】
The Catholic Church opposes not only abortion, but also contraceptives as a measure of birth control. Pope Francis even compares abortion to "hiring a hit man…to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem." As sensational as it may sound, the Pope certainly has a point here. Abortion, murder, war--a common thread is found in Attempting to resolve a problem by eliminating a human life. Here, let us dig deeper as we must not attempt to resolve a problem by eliminating life. It’s because if we’re sincere and honest about Pro-Life, then we must advocate for all life, not only anti-abortion, but also for the life of every person, of every living soul. The Vatican's editorial director Andrea Tornielli--appointed to the position by Pope Francis--praises the new US Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, but nonetheless explains those who oppose abortion could not conveniently pick and choose Pro-Life issues. In fact, being for life always means to save mothers’ life; to help women living in poverty; to defend against the threat of firearms; to help economically strained families; to provide more paid-vacation in support of a parent-child quality time; to help immigrants and refugees; to save life from death penalty. Tornielli tries to steer the US Catholic Church away from viewing Pro-Life as one-dimensional in the American culture wars. That a true Pro-Life encompasses so much more than just an anti-abortion effort. A true Pro-Life. That is, To save babies’ life. To save mothers’ life. To raise all children to save all life by eliminating the social inequality. To protect the life of immigrant and refugee people. To protect all life from gun violence. To save animals’ life from those who selfishly demand for the right to bear arms by professing “Hunting is Sports.” To save the life of African Americans and all minority people from white supremacists and police brutality. To save all animals’ life by ending the killings for our meat-eating customs. To save all life from death sentence. Upon looking at this list, we can tell that the liberal spheres of our society--in particular the progressive people--are more inclined to advocate for a true Pro-Life. In order for the liberals to truly be Pro-Life, we must not only advocate for the women’s right to her own reproductive health choices, but also honestly face the seemingly insurmountable challenge in saving babies’ life as best we can. Indeed, not everything on this list is clear-cut. For example, when a victim’s family vehemently seeks the death sentence for a vicious murderer, our hearts are broken and we feel torn. Nevertheless, the fact is clear that if we’re sincere and honest about Pro-Life, then we must earnestly advocate for all life--not only anti-abortion--but also for the life of every person, of every living soul. The pro-life movement in America has morphed into an anti-abortion effort driven by the conservative spheres of the society, advocating for pro-life only in the abortion cases. It’s become a one-dimensional anti-abortion movement regardless of the dangers posed to mothers’ life, regardless of pregnancy from rape or incest. The more radical the conservatism gets, and the more supportive of Donald Trump who stokes fear and hatred to resurrect white supremacy, the more conservative spheres of the society become willfully ignorant of people’s life--almost pushing for anti-life only except in the case of babies’ life in abortion and their own. That’s not at all true Pro-Life. Read Previous: Pro-Life for ALL Life (2)【Social Inequality】 Complete Series: Pro-Life for ALL Life (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Morality 【Social Inequality】
Throughout history and even today, many women with unintended pregnancy seek unsafe abortion often carried out on her own. This remains true especially in countries and regions where abortion is banned. Globally, 17 million unsafe abortions without the professional medical care are performed every year, and 70 thousand women die from them. Due to the lack of professional care, not only the baby, but also the mother dies. Even when the mother survives, many suffer from the consequential life-long disabilities. As pro-life is to protect all life, this creates an appalling contradiction. Also, this lack of access to medical care is part of a deeply-rooted problem in social inequality. As a matter of fact, 97% of unsafe abortions take place in developing countries. In the US, 75% of women seeking abortion are from low-income families. When abortion is severely restricted by law, those who live economically strained are outright exposed to the dangers of unsafe abortion. On the contrary, those who are economically better off tend to find loopholes to access safe abortion regardless of the ban, such as by travelling to the pro-choice states or countries where professional medical care is legally available. Additionally, preventative measures for unintended pregnancies--such as access to sex education or contraceptives--tend to be more readily available to those who are economically better off than those who are strained. In this way, abortion bans are inclined to widen the social inequality. That is, the inequality in living standards, income, and wealth between those who are fortunate and those who are less-fortunate. So, when access to sex education or contraceptives is limited, and the woman becomes pregnant without plan in countries and regions where abortion is banned--she’s left with only bad choices: to be forced to have the baby or to seek unsafe abortion. As such, abortion bans so dangerously narrow the available choices for women who are economically strained, and this amplifies the inequality of opportunity as seen in education and good jobs. And this inequality of opportunity further exacerbates the social inequality--a vicious cycle so difficult to escape. When the mother’s life is critically at risk, what’s the right choice--fetus’s life or mother’s life? And what about the livelihood of the mother’s other children, her husband, the family? In all fairness, there are times when protecting everyone involved seems like an insurmountable challenge. Nevertheless, at the minimum, it seems clear that the solution to this challenging issue won’t be achieved by simply taking away the women’s rights. On the other hand, it also won’t be achieved by simply taking away the baby’s life, either. To get to the right answer, our hearts are broken--we feel torn and crushed. It’s an answer that can’t be found in a uniform law that’s applied with a broad brush--like drawing a line in the sand and calling it “good enough” for all. It’s an answer that we can’t reach without compassionately considering the unique circumstances and subtleties of each and every one of us. If we’re sincere and honest about Pro-Life, then we must advocate for all life--not only anti-abortion--but also for the life of every person, of every living soul. In the next post, let’s dig in a little deeper on this point. Read Next: Pro-Life for ALL Life (3)【ALL Means Everyone】 Read Previous: Pro-Life for ALL Life (1)【Abortion】 Complete Series: Pro-Life for ALL Life (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Morality 【Abortion】
Last month, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Consequently, this reversal gives each of the 50 individual states the power to set their own abortion laws until such time that the US Congress passes a federal law. Following this new ruling, abortion has already become automatically outlawed or severely restricted, or is expected to be, in at least 22 of the conservative states such as Alabama and Louisiana. In many countries including the US where Christianity (and more specifically its largest branch Catholic) penetrates the society in a significant capacity, abortion is a hot topic of debate both religiously and politically. It’s reported that roughly 800 thousand pregnancies end up in abortion in the US every year, 160 thousand in Japan, and 73 million worldwide. Given such level of prevalence, it’s certainly an issue that we all must honestly face. First and foremost, we must begin by reminding ourselves of the unwavering fact that each of these incidences involves a real life of a baby, a human life. For this reason, the pro-life movement in America advocates against abortion to save baby’s life. However, in recent years, this movement has morphed into a more draconian anti-abortion effort driven by the conservative spheres of the society. On the other hand, the pro-choice movement in America advocates for the women’s right to make her own reproductive health choices and retain control over her own body. This movement is largely driven by the liberal spheres of the society. Against the backdrop of these movements, it’s fair to say that this new Supreme Court ruling gives baby’s life a clear priority over women’s right. To be clear, to protect a baby’s life, a human life, it’s imperative to stop abortion. It’s also a sincere hope to stop the careless and unintended pregnancies that perhaps all too often end up having to rely on abortion. Moreover, for mothers who can’t care for her baby after giving birth--such as often in the case of teen pregnancies. Roughly 10% of women who elect for abortion in the US are adolescents under the age of 19. Yet, it’s also true that the adoption infrastructure in America is secure and robust today. Roughly 140 thousand children are adopted every year, and it’s estimated that between 1 to 2 million couples are waiting to adopt. These adoptive parents may be those who couldn’t conceive their own baby but nonetheless are ready to become parents. Or, they perhaps already are blessed with their own babies or grown children, but are also willing to help other children in need of parental love and care. Today, saving and entrusting the baby’s life to adoptive parents is an established alternative to abortion in the US. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it’s also true that the abortion issue can’t be resolved by these measures alone. For instance, when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. One such situation is ectopic pregnancy where the fetus attaches itself and grows outside the uterus. Unfortunately, ectopic pregnancy is unviable--as the fetus develops in a constricted space, it will burst around Week 7 of pregnancy, whereby the induced shock and bleeding will critically jeopardize the life of the mother. Regrettably, there is neither enough space nor sufficient nutrition for the fetus to grow outside the uterus--the fetus can’t survive under such condition even if the mother continued with her pregnancy without regard to her own life. Every year, ectopic pregnancy affects approximately 64 thousand women in the US. Despite such reality, banning abortion altogether means to not protect the life of the mother. As pro-life is to protect all life, this creates an appalling contradiction. What’s more, over 32 thousand women get pregnant from rape and incest each year in the US. Even if the newly born baby can be entrusted to adoptive parents, the mother endures not only the horrors of sexual violence, but also the secondary mental/physical injury for the next 9 months until giving birth. There are just too many women who are subjected to a life-long suffering from such trauma. Additionally, throughout history and even today, not only in America but also worldwide, many women with unintended pregnancy seek unsafe abortion often carried out on her own. This remains true especially in countries and regions where abortion is banned. Globally, 17 million unsafe abortions without the professional medical care are performed every year, and 70 thousand women die from them. Due to the lack of professional care, not only the baby, but also the mother dies. Even when the mother survives, many suffer from the consequential life-long disabilities. This too, is a shocking contradiction to pro-life for ALL life. Read Next: Pro-Life for ALL Life (2)【Social Inequality】 Complete Series: Pro-Life for ALL Life (1)～(3) [1] [2] [3] Read Theme: Morality 【Vegetarian】
Until some 150 years ago, the general consensus was that animals have no emotions, that animals don’t feel any fear or pain. For people who eat meat, this brand of thinking was certainly a convenient escape from the crushing guilt of killing animals. Of course, it goes without saying that we now know scientifically that animals indeed have emotions just as we do. For those of us who live with our dear companions including dogs and cats, we witness daily of their colorful emotions and intricate feelings. Likewise, when we live on a farm, we come to realize that chicken, pig, and cattle are emotional beings, too. Both scientifically and from everyday experience, those of us who live here today know the truth that people of some 150 years ago didn’t. What’s more, until some 200 years ago, slavery was mainstream across the world for over thousands of years. For instance, the 2-thousand-year-old Colosseum in Rome hosted gladiator “shows” for a span of nearly 500 years, where primarily enslaved people and prisoners of war were forced to kill each other or animals in a gruesome armed combat. Spectators enjoyed the bloody killings as entertainment, as if to cheer for our favorite player at the ballpark today. From our contemporary perspective, we wonder How on earth were people back then able to behave that way without much concern? Nonetheless, the same could very well hold true from the perspective of people a few hundred years from now, learn about us who live here today, and wonder How on earth were people back then able to mass murder animals and fish to eat without much concern? Moreover, just as how humans learned that animals are emotional beings, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the day when science reveals that fish and even plants have emotions as well. In fact, we already find numerous studies that attest to this. In this light, vegetables are plants and they’re living beings too, and as such, our plant-eating habits of today could very well raise a moral question from the perspective of people a few hundred years from now. To be sure, our knowledge and science of today allow us plenty of nutrition intake without eating meat and fish, however, we still haven’t figured out how to stay healthy without eating vegetables. This forces upon us the inescapable reality that every animal sustains oneself by taking another life, the grievous limitation of life itself. Nevertheless, despite such limitation, having a reason doesn’t make it morally correct. The troubling truth is that killing plants to eat is morally wrong, too, as we cannot conclude that It would be perfectly acceptable for me, you, our loved ones, and everyone else to be suddenly killed while enjoying our day. We must face the guilt and accept the truth, while also acknowledging the grievous limitation of life itself. And once I’m there, the next step is What can I do from here on out? Studying the ecology of a food chain, to reduce the killings as much as we can, the most effective course of action that we can take now is to eat vegetables and stop eating meat/fish. Naturally, there are reasons to what we do, whether it’d be our meat/fish-eating customs, slavery, or war. Just as the slaughterhouse workers are hired to kill animals in the secluded corners of our cities, the soldiers are hired to kill people in the secluded corners of our world. And too many of us turn a blind eye to this disturbing fact by simply reiterating the reasons because we don’t have to be the ones who kill with our own hands in front of our own eyes. Nonetheless, when we view through the lens of morality, humans are advancing to end our killings in meat/fish-eating customs as well as in wars. When we grasp the sweeping tide of history, we come to realize that our morality unequivocally charts an upward trajectory. It’s certainly not linear, and more like a zig-zag, yet when viewed in increments of several hundred years, the upward trend is clearly visible. This remarkable tide of time is adopted by each and every one of us, and we’ll pass it on to the future generations, one person at a time. Now, we’re still far from perfect and the moral pinnacle only visible in the distance, yet, let us take it upon ourselves to elevate the morality of humanity. As humans, it’s indeed our responsibility. Read Previous: What’s Morals? (7)【We Can Reduce】 Complete Series: What’s Morals? (1)～(8) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Read Theme: Morality 【We Can Reduce】
In Part 3 – 6 of the series What’s Morals?, we’ve covered the fact that our meat-eating and fish-eating customs are morally wrong. Yet, it’s quite understandable for those who’ve known me personally to rebut, “That’s a bit too much.” To be fair, I used to eat meat until just a year ago – nearly at every meal – and regrettably, I still eat fish at times. My reasons for occasionally eating fish are We go out for sushi once in a while and Canned-tuna and fish-cakes are well preserved so won’t be wasted. Nonetheless, those reasons don’t make it right to argue for the moral correctness in my fish-eating habit. The truth is, as cited two posts ago, they don’t alter the fact that it’s morally wrong. Therefore, I must face the guilt and accept the truth, that I’m killing many fish to eat. And once I’m there, the next step is What can I do from here on out? Here, one viable answer may be Let’s reduce as much as we can. Make no mistake, less killing doesn’t make it right. Any killing must be stopped as one killing is one too many. On the other hand, to most of us who’ve been eating meat and fish for decades ever since weaned off milk and baby-food, taking it Down to zero at once may prove to be unsustainable. Because for every variety of customs and norms, it’s naturally a challenge to stop in most cases. It’s even more so when it comes to our eating custom. Against the backdrop of this challenge, suppose we dare to suggest “every other day” to a person who eats meat every day. If s/he does, then s/he alone will eliminate the killing of 5 land animals on average every year. Suppose we go further and muster the courage to suggest “one day eat, two days hold.” If s/he does, then s/he alone will save on average 7 animals every year. If sustained for 10 years, 70 lives will be saved. As for our marine animals, “every other day” will eliminate on average 75 killings, and “one day eat, two days hold” will eliminate the killing of 100 fish every year. If sustained for 10 years, 750 – 1,000 lives will be saved. With one person’s open-mind and action, we can actually in reality save many lives. And if everyone in the world gets on board, then we can eliminate the killing of 36 – 48 billion land animals every year. We can save 600 – 800 billion lives of marine animals every year. To put this in context, the human population is nearly 7.8 billion today, which means that we can save the lives of several to 100+ multiples of ourselves in just one year. And if sustained for 10 years, imagine the incredible magnitude of lives we can save. Now, even if not everyone in the world – even if we only get one person on board at a time, we can save many lives with every open-mind and action coming together. Each of our influence may be limited, but each of us aren’t powerless. While we may not be able to do everything, we can surely do something. The terrible truth is that we’re almost mindlessly killing animals and fish in the secluded corners of our cities. Yet, even if we may not be able to take it Down to zero at once, we can reduce in a meaningful way. Let us have the heart to start where we can, with hopes that it will lead to zero. Read Next: What’s Morals? (8)【Vegetarian】 Read Previous: What’s Morals? (6)【Avoiding Change】 Complete Series: What’s Morals? (1)～(8) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Read Theme: Morality 【Avoiding Change】
The second type of objection usually takes the form of “We who benefit from modern medicine enabled by animal tests have no business talking about the cruelty of eating meat. It’s hypocritical.” To be sure, we’ve witnessed a remarkable advancement in medical devices and pharmaceuticals. And it’s a fact that, in some cases, animal tests have aided us to confirm the safety and efficacy of new medical technology in advance of human clinical trials. However, most animal tests force live animals to undergo procedures likely to cause them pain, suffering, fear, or lasting distress. In fact, animals used in labs are deliberately harmed by injecting substances, feeding toxins, surgically removing organs or tissues, and are often killed at the end of the experiment. What’s more, mammals are largely used as test subjects because they’re considered the most similar to humans, and as such, they’re mass produced like goods. In 2015 alone, at least 200 million animals including monkeys, dogs, mice, and rabbits were used and mostly killed for animal testing, worldwide. Nearly year and a half have passed since the novel coronavirus suddenly changed the way we live, and 3.9 million people have fallen to this virus. Yet, when we compare the fatalities, the sheer size of the cruelty in animal testing is appalling. What’s even more appalling are the massive fatalities of animals and fish killed for us to eat, as cited in the previous two posts. Below, annual fatalities are listed out for comparison. 【Coronavirus; 1.5 years】 3,900,000 【Animal Testing】 200,000,000 【Meat-Eating Custom】 72,000,000,000 【Fish-Eating Custom】 1,200,000,000,000 Among the above figures, with the exception of coronavirus fatalities, we must remember that they’re likely underestimates due to slack reporting requirements imposed in most countries, as well as the fact that they’re deliberately killed by humans. When we acknowledge these truths, we realize that the argument We who benefit from modern medicine enabled by animal tests have no business talking about the cruelty of eating meat is a senseless one in our right mind and all fairness. It’s because this argument is simply an attempt in disguise to justify our meat-eating and fish-eating customs. And of course, it’s utterly absurd to claim that Because we already kill 200 million, it’s fine to kill additional 72 billion, and yet another 1.2 trillion. It just won’t cut it. * * * * * * * * * * The two broad types of objections we’ve cited in the last post and this post. The common thread running through them both is the fixed attitude of avoiding change by listing up reasons. The reasons such as Animals eat other animals and Benefits from animal tests. Yet, let us repeat once again that even if we have a good reason, that doesn’t make it morally correct. As we discussed of slavery in the prior post #70, Having a reason for certain action and the Moral correctness of that action are separate and unrelated. They have nothing to do with each other. Truth be told, even if our fixed attitude of avoiding change compels us to list up reasons to eat meat and fish, that doesn’t alter the fact that our meat-eating and fish-eating customs are morally wrong. Read Next: What’s Morals? (7)【We Can Reduce】 Read Previous: What’s Morals? (5)【Our Responsibility】 Complete Series: What’s Morals? (1)～(8) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Read Theme: Morality |
ENG/JPN Posted Alternately
日本語/英語を交互に掲載 Author ﾌﾟﾛﾌｨｰﾙ
JOE KIM Theme ﾃｰﾏ
All
Visits ｱｸｾｽ15,321 (as of 3/1/2026) 
|
RSS Feed