[Note: The video Earthlings http://earthlings.
"Sentient beings are not Property"
Its also not Rights in the plural sense either, its not the right to run for office or to own a car or get married or whatever sort of nonsense someone might come up with, its just the right to not be property. The animal welfarists of the world do not agree with this idea, they believe it is perfectly acceptable for humans to consume animals as long as it is done in a 'humane' way, though there is a legitimate debate going on within animal activist communities as to whether or not it could ever be humane regardless of the sort of treatment. The philosophical core to the Animal Welfare is:
"Minimize the Suffering and to Maximize the Standard of Living of Animals"
This debate between welfarists and rights advocates is certainly interesting for its own philosophical depths and I will be exploring this at much greater length in a different blog post, but the first thing that needs to be addressed is the third position in terms of how to view animals which is that they are dumb unaware automatons that do not deserve to be apart of the moral community and hence the discussion of which side to fall on should be skipped entirely. At this point of the post it may be that I have completely lost any of the much larger audience that one would hope these arguments reach instead of simply preaching to the choir, but if you have ever spent any extended amount of time with the typical animals we choose to domesticate such as cats and dogs you would know that there are very real and noticeable personalities, noticeable attachments to their mothers and children, noticeable repulsion to pain stimulants, noticeable desires for treats and toys, almost as if they had their own feelings and thoughts.
To me I find it very analogous to the time in which people claimed that African Americans were not part of the moral community, and how through their own advocation as well as Whites along with world events, they were eventually considered eligible to not be property. They then eventually went on through the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr. to gain full equal status which is the step that makes the difference between animals. The same attributes that we assert as inherently valuable for humans also applies to animals, its the additional attribute of intelligence which asserts the additional rights we subscribe to humans.
You can disagree with my assertions that their personalities, feelings, desires, attachments, the ability to suffer, the ability to have happiness, etc is the collection of attributes that includes animals into the moral community, but I would be compelled to ask as, what would it take to grant access to the moral community in your eyes? Intelligence? That seems very self selective and out of step, as if its from the 'wrong category' to base a persons ethics. For example if I were to look at a mentally retarded child and say that this child is not intelligent enough to be considered apart of the moral community and the probability that they will ever be intelligent enough to be apart of the moral community is so overwhelmingly against that it would mean that I could treat that child like a piece of cardboard and have it be a morally neutral event, I would say your either lying to try to make a point or that there would be quiet a few people you wouldn't mind treating like cardboard (killing off) as well such as the elderly who have had a regression in their cognitive abilities and have an equally low enough probability of regaining their intelligence. I would also like to know how you would measure the intelligence level to which it would take to make it in the club, and why would the line be drawn there and not somewhere lower or higher? If you could assign the arbitrary line of intelligence to the point where it just barely excludes most of the animal kingdom and includes humans and maybe dolphins and apes then I would ask why would that be a better spot than say a line that excludes say 80% (or 99.99%) of the human race including all of the animal kingdom? No, it seems that using intelligence as a marker for the moral community is an incoherent concept, though I could be wrong and if I am please explain why it would make sense.
To be honest, if you read through my first blog post (like you should have) you would know that I believe that most values and decisions people endorse are rooted much farther in emotions than they are within logic and so it would make sense that most people have an aversion to making the lifestyle shift that they were conditioned into by family and society instead of being in disagreement about the ethics. If you think about it, food has got to be one of the most culturally influential bonding events that a person goes through, who would want to give up that old familiar feeling of scrambled eggs made just the way mom prepared it every now and then. Not to mention the constant barrage of advertisements from Taco Bell and KFC or whatever it might be that needs some getting use to if there would be a lifestyle shift in a culture dominated by the idea that animal products is a morally neutral thing.
Vegan food, when prepared properly is fucking delicious. There are lots of alternatives to choose from that either mimic the taste or act as suitable alternatives to animal products. There are thousands and thousands of different plants to choose from and the typical American diet consists of the 3 main suspects: pig, cow, and chicken. Vegan food is healthier for you, as in it can give you longer lasting and higher levels of energy, higher levels of nutrition and higher levels of fiber which is helpful in weight-loss. Its better for the planet, as in a vegan that drives a Hummer has a smaller carbon foot print than an omnivore that rides a bike... Its more efficient as far as energy reserves are concerned since instead of feeding plants to animals to then eat the animals, you skip the step and just eat the plants, oh and by the way, plants do not have brains so there isn't a moral question when consuming a tomato.
I think I've covered most of the talking points but I'm sure I've missed some, if you watch Earthlings and be on the lookout for up and coming blog posts where I go into the Rights vs Welfare debate, as well as my own version of veganism, as well as smaller topics like Pets, you will get a complete version of my thoughts on the topic. Be brave my non-vegan friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment