I received a question: isn't it better to be a non-vegan who rescues than one who does not? Yes. And it's better to be a serial murderer who does charity work on Thursdays than a serial murder who does no charity work at all. But that does not address the morality of murder or the inconsistency of murdering while doing charity work! My point is that those who rescue animals but who continue to eat them necessarily (even if not explicitly) regard the moral value of the animals they save as greater than the moral value of the ones they eat.

Please understand that I think that doing rescue work is fantastic and I have great respect for those who do it. (I have done TNR/fostering.) Many rescue folks work 24/7 helping unfortunate animals who will otherwise be killed in shelters or otherwise come to a horrible end. It is precisely because I do have a high regard for those who rescue/foster that I raise these issues. Rescue should not be just a matter of which animals are our "favorites." If someone were to rescue dogs but trapped and poisoned cats, we would surely find that odd. But the same analysis applies to those who do any sort of rescue work but then consume animal products.

Reply · Report Post