Charity Begins at Home?

Since the violent deterioration in our region, numerous protests reach Anonymous, along the following lines:



The following reaction is heard as well, although less frequently:



Such comments, often delivered with threatening anger, need to be effectively answered by Anonymous' activists. This article will try to clarify and answer the "Charity Begins at Home" argument. We will start by looking at key general issues, and then at moral considerations in times of emergency.

Family preference - the key question

Should Charity Begin at Home?

Should we prefer those closer to us? Our fiercest critics claim that we should all drop any other consideration and deal exclusively with those around us and with ourselves. Is all this Animal Rights activity really necessary, they ask, in times of Emergency? This latter question will be answered further on, but first we must ask, just how valid is the basic premise, that we must give precedence to those closest to us (i.e. family etc.), then to people further from us, and only lastly to other creatures? The answer seems simple: It's obvious that one's family is more important than all the chickens in the entire world! (But - who's really closer to me - the dog who calls me to take him for a walk, or some Anonymous girl in Kamchatka? Not a simple question, and it will be left to another discussion). Let us distance ourselves momentarily from Life and Death issues and try to examine the question from a day-to-day perspective. For instance, is it justified to let my brother jump a queue to my office - simply because he's my brother? It would seem not. Though many people practice nepotism, that doesn't make such practice morally acceptable. The preferential treatment of relatives may, in fact, break the principle of Equal Rights, which would seem to be more important morally than nepotism. In other words, if the claim that one should give less attention to animals is based on the fact that animals are different and far removed from humans, such a claim is morally unconvincing.

Isn't it Natural to Prefer Those Closest to You?

Or, in other words: "Moral principles are all good and well, but we don't act according to such principles exclusively. We are emotional beings, and we can't act in defiance of our natural instincts." And what do our natural instincts decree? Why, that we prefer those closest to us, of course! But this claim, too, isn't very convincing. Nepotism remains nepotism, and when it clashes with the principle of Equal Rights - it becomes simply invalid, whether the motive is moral or emotional.

Our Closest Deserve the Highest Priority!

Nepotism may have some positive aspects. Who needs us more - our community members or penguins in Antarctica? And to whom of these two groups can we contribute the most, and should be considered responsible for doing so in the first place? In this context, it's clearly better to work for the benefit of those closest to us. Perhaps we should even ignore the furry, winged and scaly animals?

Our Furthest Deserve the Highest Priority!

Yet does anyone really needs moral principles to point out that one should help oneself first, while also acknowledging, for example, that penguins in Antarctica are less important? Eventually, the "principle" involved here is a mere reflection of our own self-interest. In that sense, giving preference to those further from us contradicts this principle of self-interest. Those who are far and different from us - we don't know or like them and it's difficult to feel empathy for them - and therefore there is little motivation to help them. So if anyone needs the protection of our moral principles, it must be them. And no one needs the aid of such moral principles more than those animals, which we are practically unacquainted with.

Competition for Scarce Resources?

We seem to have reached a moral jumble: On the one hand, everyone - near as well as far - deserves equal concern; yet we need to pay special attention to those we tend to ignore; and contrarily invest more into those closest to us, since they are the most dependent on us. So, when should we act one way or the other? This is the crux of the matter: When someone tries to take what I can only give sparingly, I would prefer (and justly so) to give what I can to those closest to me. But when someone tries to take something that I can give in abundance - then the principle of Equal Rights reasserts itself.

What do Animals "Take" from Us?

Our angry critics love to say that the animal liberation activists "choose animals over humans". But how? The first thing a person can do for animals of various species is to avoid eating products made of their bodies or of their bodily products. Surely, such a demand does not plunder anyone's scarce resources. All a person has to do is to replace certain products with others, out of free choice; the action for animals takes absolutely no resources that could have been used for others. Even more vigorous activity for animals, such as activism in Anonymous, does not generally come in place of activity for humans. Perhaps in some other world, where all people spend all of their time vigorously attending to other humans, it could be honestly claimed that activity for chickens detracts from activity for humans. But it is the real world that we are concerned with. And in the real world, not only does activity for the release of animals from established exploitation not compete with activity for humans, but also in some ways it contributes to humans.

Excuses are Easy…

Some may say that even the effort required to be a vegetarian, or even to listen to a five-minute explanation by Anonymous activists, robs them of enormous, irreclaimable resources that should have been devoted to the good of the nation, or to human rights. That is the only ethical basis for the claim that in time of terrorist attacks and/or of occupation one should "stop dealing with animals". But it's hard to believe that one may be so busy with helping humans that no time is left to go through a gradual change of diet. In short, we see that the sharp philosophical dilemma "for whom to act - for humans or for animals?" is simply inconsistent with daily reality that is faced by most of us. This philosophical dilemma may be relevant in certain special situations. But generally speaking, even in situations of bombings and shootings - it is simply not relevant.

The Magical Allure of Emergency Situations

How to Divert Your Attention

If you try to remind someone of a heavy and troublesome responsibility to be borne on his/her shoulders, the easiest way for him/her to silence you is to say: "You've got dirt on your face! Go look in the mirror and wipe it off!" A similar principle stands behind the claim that "whilst people are being killed one should not deal with animal rights". This isn't a genuine moral claim on our choice of preferences - it's simply a provocation that is intended to divert your attention from the harmed animals and from our personal responsibility, as consumers, regarding those animals - a provocation aimed at those who dare to disturb our peace of mind by reminding us of the hard facts. The claim is supposedly moral, but in truth it is designed to cause you to go on the defensive, by concentrating on you and not on the issues themselves.

An Everlasting State of Emergency!

When exactly did "the situation", which supposedly prohibits any engagement in animal rights issues, begin? The last few months? No. And not since the beginning of the Intifada either, nor since the beginning of any other war. In fact, the "situation" never actually began: It was always here. Even in the most promising peaceful days, there are those who will recall that the State of Israel is fighting for its very existence (hence the need to leave the chickens aside), or that no-one has promised us that war won't return tomorrow (geese - move aside!), and if not war, then there is the "economic situation", or the "welfare situation", or any other situation, and these require our full attention. This is the way to push all animal rights activities aside until the End of Days, to the days that all of mankind's problems will have been solved - and this is the convenient time indeed, since it will never arrive. And what if it does arrive, Heaven forbid? Even then we can push the animals to the end of the list, because anything human beings do is more important (haven't you guys got anything better to do?).

The Left Hand Shakes the Right Hand

The rhetoric of "Charity begins at home" vs. animal rights manages to do what every Unity Government hasn't managed yet to do: To unite the Left and the Right in full agreement. The Right attack with the claim that worrying about the milking practices of cows, for example, degrades the pain and suffering of our nation's terror victims and damages our national morale; while the Left attack and say that the movement for the liberation of animals has no right to exist without a strong base of commitment to human rights, and therefore one needs to submit to the preferences determined by the Left. In other words - forget the pain of cows through milking until further notice. Now, if both sides were to reflect about the roots of their strange coalition, they would no doubt reconsider their positions. The claim of the Right against being interested with the pain of cows would be rejected by the Left because of over-nationalism, while the claim of the Left would rejected by the Right for over-concerns for the enemy's welfare. But most of these prosecutors don't consider their standpoints. They just want to be left alone to drink their milk in peace.

Why Us?

Animal rights activists supposedly receive a great deal of respect from their critics, when these critics entrust them with the heavy responsibility of enlistment to the defense of the human race. But the crowds who go to movies, nightclubs and restaurants, or even those who simply stay at home to do nothing in particular - they aren't entrusted with such heavy and important missions. So why pick on the animal rights activists? The simple answer is that these activists put themselves in the public eye, desire to make contact with the crowds and make demands on them. In other words, they invite reaction. But this is only half the answer. The deeper reason for the criticism lies in the threat that animal rights issues poses for the self-image of many as moral human beings. Someone comes to you and shows you that you're not acting morally. "Me? Immoral? Ridiculous!" And how can you prove that you're "alright"? "Look how much I love humanity!" People who consider themselves as possessors of developed consciousness are the most aggressive towards animal rights' activists: Their self-image is the most threatened.

Procedures for a State of Emergency

For those who wish to ignore animal rights, the image of "emergency situation" carries an additional advantage: during an emergency, one can deviate from the normal rules. It might be true that the asphyxiation of chickens in their own body waste is very unpleasant and should be avoided; but in an emergency we must be strong and tough and must put aside all these lovely principles. So, not only does the "emergency situation" give us permission to forget what we would rather forget - it also provides an excuse to shut the mouths of those who try to remind us of what we would rather forget. The absurdity and the cynicism of the use of "emergency" situations in order to suppress all opposition are easier to detect when they occur elsewhere, as the attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrate. Although the attacks (which were indeed very exceptional, especially in a Middle Eastern perspective) were conducted by some specific and well-known people, many elements in the USA rushed to take advantage of the situation and connect the terror of September 11th to any inconvenient activity. The "terrorism bills" which were promoted in a few states were the grotesque climax of that tendency, which is finely demonstrated in a quote from the spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Portland, speaking to a New York Times reporter about the activity of the Animal Liberation Front:



The "Terrorism" that warranted connection to the mass murder of September 11th and promoted patriotic feelings, includes breakings into fur farms for the sake of liberating minks, and breakings into research labs in order to free pigeons...