Only if the degree of culpability is comparable. And maybe we should talk about that.
But many abolitionists had been slave-holders, and even the ones who weren't did not ever in their lifetime believe all races should be treated equally. They were guilty of the same moral crime of rascism that slavery was founded on but to a lesser extent.
There were also the likes of Thomas Jefferson whose words inspired those fighting for liberty for generations...and who was a hardcore slave-holder. We appreciate and revere the moral positions he penned despite his utter failure to live up to those ideals himself.
Basically what I am having trouble accepting is the notion that one must be completely devoid of blame before making a moral judgement. Why?
I get how the closer you are living up to the ideal yourself the more persuasive power you're gonna have with others. If that is all you are trying to say then we are in agreement.
But why is it necessary to be a paragon of virtue before one is allowed to point at the more obvious moral errors? Paragons of virtue are, well, hard to come by to say the least. Pretty much everyone is mostly living according to the morals of the time, while some make baby steps forward which, when pointed out to others, can result in progress.
I mean, if you make the statement "X is bad", how much X you are doing yourself is irrelevant to the validity of the statement, is it not? (it is relevant to your capacity to persuade others, certainly)
The original reason why I posted this was because you asked:
"Would the very few friends who respected your beliefs to the extent of not whipping their slaves while you were standing directly beside them be enough to keep a smile on your face as you went about your daily routine? Would you--and the slaves--be better off if you stopped looking at the things they were doing wrong and instead looked at what they were doing right? Maybe your neighbor gave his slaves 6 lashings today instead of the usual 7. Would that have been enough to make you happy?"
The intention of that comment was solely to point at the absurdity of your heart feeling pain when your friend whips his 50 slaves 10 times a day, while you whip your 3 slaves 2 times a day.
I agree fully that you don't need to be completely morally virtuous in order to be able to point out moral errors, and indeed your level of persuasive power will most likely rise with your level of moral virtuousness.
I don't think it's absurd. We are talking about two big moral injustices with movements against them headed by people who are guilty themselves to a lesser extent. I am not the first person to compare animal liberation to the historical struggle for abolition.
But that said, you may be right for all I know about which mentality would best lead to the desired outcome, speaking practically. I can't say I know.
It is definitely not absurd to draw parallels between the two, but that was not what you were doing.
You asked: "Perhaps more importantly, and this may be getting a bit off-topic, would the institution of slavery have ever come to an end (or come to an end as early as it did) through happiness and smiles? "
As if to imply only the same strategy used by abolitionists could end animal exploitation/cruelty. That however, as I showed, is a critical error in logic, regardless that there exist parallels between the two.
If that implication wasnt your intention, but solely my assumption, then my apologies
Where is the line where a personal choice begins?
Im not even sure there is such a line. If there is one though, Im pretty sure it's not gonna be based on a quantitative difference, it will more than likely be based on a qualitative difference.
What I mean by this is, now vegans and non vegans both indirectly kill animals in brutal ways for no reason other than personal pleasure/luxuries. Lets say a vegan contributes to about 50 animal deaths per year due to the extra normal agriculture done to support the large variety of plantfoods he/she wants to eat. Lets say a meat eater contributes to 1000 animal deaths per year. This quantitative difference consuming animal products vs not consuming animal products isn't where the line of personal choice should be drawn, because its arbitrary.
It's not even correct in all cases: someone who eats meat once a week and never has any children will probably even have a lower animal bodycount than a vegan with 4 children.
If such a line were to exist, I would argue it should be drawn as to distuingish a qualitative difference, such as animal deaths vs NO animal deaths for the sole reason of personal pleasure/luxuries/comfort of living.
Just like you wouldn't ever argue drawing that line based on a quantitative difference for matters such as slavery.
Pretty much all of us are guilty of telling a lie from time to time. But not all to the same degree. There are people who rarely lie. There are occasional liars. There are habitual liars. There are people who have built such a career out of dishonesty that they make Pinochio look like the Buddha. Are we not allowed to pass a moral judgement about the latter types because dishonesty is a personal choice?
What kind of moral judgement would you be passing? "You're a liar!"? Claiming he/she is a bad person because he/she lies that often?
I refer you back to my:
"(and even on that day it would be counter-productive and self-serving to do so)"