Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Blind Eye: Selective Empathy in an Age of Violence

Opinion

The Blind Eye: Selective Empathy in an Age of Violence
Person holds sign saying stop animal exploitation
Photo by Tico on Unsplash

We do not want bloodshed. Not in Gaza. Not in Ukraine. Not in another American school or home. The thought of hostages, children trapped under rubble, and screams amid gunfire pains us deeply. We say violence is wrong, period, and we demand that the government do something about it—that is, until it’s wrapped in plastic at a grocery store.

Every day, in places most of us will never see, workers kill animals. These victims haven’t done anything wrong; they are simply born in bodies that humans decide do not matter. We know what happens to them behind slaughterhouse doors—even if we try not to think about it.


Our government is more than complicit in this violence—it is an active participant, spending billions of dollars on animal agriculture, with some farms receiving tens of millions each year. Farmers who grow fruits, vegetables, and grains receive far less. That is why PETA is calling on lawmakers to end these wasteful subsidies and redirect the money to vegan foods, helping grocers stock healthy animal-free foods and ensuring everyone has access to compassionate, sustainable options.

The U.S. government also enables abuse in these industries to continue: PETA has documented that federal inspectors routinely record animals suffering in clearly illegal ways at slaughterhouses—animals punched, shot multiple times, left conscious as they are hoisted and hacked apart—yet the agency has never once referred these cases for federal prosecution. With lax inspections, weak enforcement, and confusing signals about whether state and local anti-cruelty laws can be applied, offenders go unpunished, cruelty continues to go unchecked, and offenders are emboldened because there are no consequences for their actions. This lack of enforcement sends a dangerous message: that cruelty to animals used for food is protected by the very system meant to stop it.

A healthy society depends on its members to question violence in all its forms, whether inflicted by nations or corporations, with missiles or in slaughterhouses. So let’s think about it: You would not eat a dog, so why eat a chicken? Dogs and chickens have the same capacity to feel pain, but prejudice based on species allows us to consider one animal a companion and another as food.

A paper published in the Social Psychological Bulletin revealed the mental gymnastics that some meat-eaters engage in to cope with their uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. The review examined self-soothing strategies people use to respond to triggers—things that recall the contradiction of eating meat while supposedly caring about animals. Processed “products” help numb that truth—when flesh is ground, shaped, and renamed, compassion and disgust are easier to suppress. Language itself softens the blow: “Steak” sounds more palatable than “dead sentient being.”

To ease our conscience, companies slap “humane” and “animal welfare certified” labels on animal-derived foods—but PETA’s investigations have revealed that these labels are meaningless and misleading. At Sweet Stem Farm, formerly a Whole Foods supplier, PETA found pigs crammed into sheds, denied outdoor access, suffering from untreated injuries like bloody rectal prolapses and enduring painful deaths, all while being marketed as “happy meat.” And at Plainville Farms, a PETA investigator witnessed workers violently abusing turkeys—they kicked, stomped, choked, and even mocked them with sexual gestures—while sick and injured birds were left to suffer and die.

Some of us may also deny that animals feel pain or comprehend what’s happening to them. But they do. Take fish, for example: A new study in Scientific Reports reveals that fish experience severe pain—and can suffer for at least 10 agonizing minutes after being pulled from the water.

This compartmentalization—the capacity to care selectively—is not just a personal moral contradiction. It’s a collective psychological barrier that enables societies to justify all kinds of cruelty: war, exploitation, and violence. When we decide that some lives matter less, empathy diminishes. And when empathy diminishes, democracy itself becomes fragile.

As the late, great Helen Thomas said: “A healthy democracy requires an informed people, facts make a country safe, and facts protect people.” The fact is that across the U.S., 99% of animals used for food spend their entire lives on farms—never enjoying sunlight, fresh air or freedom until they’re packed onto trucks bound for slaughter.

Vegan living is a vote for a world in which compassion is not rationed by species or convenience. Just imagine schools teaching that kindness should extend to every living being while feeding students a healthy plant-powered lunch. Imagine governments investing in food systems that don’t involve raising animals in squalor just to kill them while destroying the planet. If we can imagine it, we can do it. Everything starts with an idea.

The path to peace will never be paved with selective empathy. All it will take is for people like you and me to shift to vegan foods. It’s easy. Simple actions like choosing a lentil stew over processed flesh or ordering oat milk in your latte—these can shape markets and public norms. And it starts with us.

Rebecca Libauskas is a writer for the PETA Foundation, www.PETA.org.


Read More

Protestors wearing masks and holding signs.

A deCOALonize protest against coal held in 2019 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Photo courtesy of deCOALonize.

Philanthropy Must Accelerate a Just Energy Transition

After crucial global progress toward tackling the climate crisis in recent years, we are re-entering an era where powerful industrial nations are again resorting to military force to control fossil fuel reserves as both a key aim and lever of geopolitical power.

The United States’ illegal military intervention on January 3 in Venezuela, a colonialist power play for the country’s vast oil reserves, is among the latest outcomes of the dangerous pivot away from global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Days after its military incursion in Venezuela, the U.S. became the first nation in the world to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty ratified by Congress in 1992 that seeks to limit the amount of climate pollution in the atmosphere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Chicago’s First Environmental Justice Ordinance Faces Uncertain Future in City Council

David Architectural Metals, Inc. is a longtime Chicago metal fabrication company for commercial and industrial construction. The company is situated in the same area as the other sites.

Chicago’s First Environmental Justice Ordinance Faces Uncertain Future in City Council

CHICAGO— Chicago’s first environmental justice ordinance sits dormant in the City Council’s Zoning Committee. Awaiting further action, some activists and alders have been pushing to get it passed, while others don’t want it passed at all.

At a Nov. 3 rare special committee meeting, Ald. Bennett Lawson (44th Ward), chair of the City Council’s Zoning Committee, said he would not call for a vote on the ordinance. His decision signaled the measure may lack enough support to advance, but its sponsors think there is enough community support to push it forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
Planting Hope in a Hard Season
selective photo of petaled flower
Photo by raquel raq on Unsplash

Planting Hope in a Hard Season

In an Advent reflection penned several years ago, Anne Lamott wrote, “even as everything is dying and falling asleep…something brand new is coming. Hope is coming….swords will be beaten into plowshares, spears into pruning hooks.

“This is a little hard to buy,” she admitted, “with a world stage occupied by—well, I’m not going to name names. But setting aside one’s tiny tendency toward cynicism,…in Advent — we wait; and hope appears if we truly desire to see it….we find it where we can….”

Keep ReadingShow less
Mandatory vs. Voluntary Inclusionary Housing: What Cities Are Doing to Create Affordable Homes

affordable housing

Dougal Waters/Getty Images

Mandatory vs. Voluntary Inclusionary Housing: What Cities Are Doing to Create Affordable Homes

As housing costs rise across United States cities, local governments are adopting inclusionary housing policies to ensure that some portion of new residential developments remains affordable. These policies—defined and tracked by organizations like the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy—require or encourage developers to include below-market-rate units in otherwise market-rate projects. Today, over 1,000 towns have implemented some form of inclusionary housing, often in response to mounting pressure to prevent displacement and address racial and economic inequality.

What’s the Difference Between Mandatory and Voluntary Approaches?

Inclusionary housing programs generally fall into two types:

Keep ReadingShow less