Most people desire peace for everyone — family, friends, community, country, and nations of the earth. But if only people are included, peace on Earth will remain a dream.

Why? Because as Albert Schweitzer, the French philosopher, physician, musician, and winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize pointed out: “Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace.”

Strong words.

In his Nobel Peace Prize address, Dr. Schweitzer said: “The human spirit is not dead. ... It has come to believe that compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind.”

It is apropos to talk about peace at this particular time of year — whether you celebrate Christmas religiously, spiritually, or commercially — the message of peace permeates all religions and cultures.

In Schweitzer’s Philosophy of Civilization, he wrote: “We must fight against the spirit of unconscious cruelty with which we treat the animals. Animals suffer as much as we do. True humanity does not allow us to impose such sufferings on them. It is our duty to make the whole world recognize it.”

Peace — not just for humans but for all animals who share earth with us.

“Thou shalt not kill” means not killing all creatures, not just humans. We would be foolish to expect that we can achieve global peace while participating in the suffering, enslavement, and killing of sentient beings every time we eat. The mindless and widely accepted practice of bringing life into this world, only to abuse, exploit, and kill it at less than five per cent of its life span for our own satisfaction is reprehensible.

As with the abolition of slavery, women’s oppression, racism, and discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion, or gender, some people are championing the abolition of discrimination based on species, or speciesism.

If activists only focused on improving slavery conditions for blacks, would happy slavery make it more palatable for the slaves? Not likely. It was only through abolition of slavery that it became no longer socially or morally acceptable by mainstream society.

Hence, using animals “nicely”, or “humanely” detracts energy and focus from the only meaningful cause from the animals’ perspective — abolition of their exploitation. It has never been our right to use animals for our gustatory pleasure, fashion vanity, experimental testing, and entertainment, just as we have no right to use marginalized humans for any purpose. It is every creature’s birthright to live without exploitation by humans.

When people become defensive about their right to eat, harvest, hunt, and kill animals, it exhibits an underlying conflict between their innate moral code (that it’s wrong to harm or kill unnecessarily) and their habituated unconscious practice of dining on dead carcasses and using animal parts. If humans have evolved intellectually, why don’t our actions reflect our evolution as moral beings? The fact that we dominate other species merely demonstrates our moral inferiority.