Posted by alexandra_k on February 22, 2005, at 16:42:01
In reply to Re: Animal Rights, posted by Mark H. on February 22, 2005, at 14:56:10
>First, I think we should avoid labeling others with terms they would not use to describe themselves. We may feel emotionally justified in using terms like racist, sexist, terrorist, etc., but on a process level their use is usually prejudicial. It's wonderfully ironic that we tend to stereotype others for stereotyping others.
Yes, I agree. Singer has a particular technical use of the term ‘racist’ and ‘speciest’ in mind, however, so it isn’t just ‘name calling’. He also justifies the analogy between ‘unfair’ discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and on the basis of species. Here is some of his justification:When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Those who wish to defend a hierarchical, inegalitarian society have often pointed out that whatever test we choose, it simply is not true that all humans are equal. Like it or not, we must face the facts that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilites, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand.
(Discussion as to whether these differences are innate or environmental – the scientific jury is still out.)
Fortunately, there is no need to pin the case for equality to one particular outcome of this scientific investigation. The appropriate response to those who claim to have found evidence of genetically based differences in ability between the races or sexes is not to stick to the belief that genetic explanation must be wrong, whatever evidence to the contrary may turn up: instead we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or simple matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies and DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WE GIVE TO SATISFYING THEIR NEEDS AND INTERESTS. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans… Many philosophers have proposed the principle of equal consideration of interests, in some form or other, as a basic moral principle; but… not many of them have recognised that this principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own…
The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a pre-requisite for having interests at all…If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that suffering be counted equally with like suffering – in so far as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as a conventient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary way. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin colour?
>Second, I think it is useful to become conscious of killing in order to reduce it, but the fact remains that most of us kill other creatures every day, whether by using mouthwash or walking across the lawn, driving our cars into insects or vacuuming our rugs and carpets.
Yes. Although we may question whether ants, mites, etc are really sentient. They may be they may not be. The most clear cut cases seem to be cows, sheep, pigs, mice, monkeys, birds etc.
>Third, strictly vegetarian diets are not healthy for everyone, especially a diet that relies on soy products to replace animal fats and proteins (see, for example, "Nourishing Traditions" for an explanation of this argument). Speaking just for myself, I tried being a non-meat-eater for about six years when I was younger and found I could not maintain good health.
Ok. I don’t know much about nutrition. I guess that is fairly arguable. How about suppliments?
>Of course, I could choose to be less healthy.
Yeah, but we don’t want you to suffer either ;-)
> I know a woman, for instance, who won't take antibiotics to get rid of the intestinal parasites she picked up in South America many years ago. She also sets the vacuum bag outside after cleaning her room to let the fleas escape. And she chooses to let her animals suffer flea infestations rather than using Advantage or a similar product.
Hmm. I am not sure fleas are sentient. But they might be. I wouldn’t go to such lengths, but I respect those who do. But then her pets (who we are fairly sure are sentient) must have suffered a great deal… There are natural repellants that could have protected them without killing the fleas.
>So whether or not we kill is not just a matter of "taste" or "trivial interest." I think there may be room to argue that given the choice between eating range-fed beef or a Big Mac, choosing the range-fed beef may be better for everyone. However, this choice is likely determined more by economics, education and access than by personal preference.
In a fair few cases it is ‘just a matter of taste or trivial interest’ though. The difference between what we are going to buy for dinner can often simply amount to ‘what we feel like’.
>Fourth, even the most careful practitioners of harmlessness that I know would be reluctant to compare animal husbandry to human slavery or experimenting on animals to experimenting on "orphaned human babies." Of course, I appreciate that the author would consider this "speciesism."
Of course they would be reluctant to experiment on an orphaned human infant – that is the point. They do not show such reluctance to experiment on animals and it is precisely their lack of reluctance in the latter case that shows that they are ‘speciest’ in the sense that they show more moral consideration for human infants than they do for animals with a comperable capacity to suffer.
>Fifth, some of those who advocate for animal rights show remarkable disdain for human beings in general, and especially for those engaged in animal food production or experimentation. If one's argument is that compassion should extend to all creatures, then it is important not to exclude those with whom we disagree.
I agree with you completely.
>There is a middle ground. I think it's good for us to be aware of where we are in the food chain, and to acknowledge with respect and reverence the thousands of lives of other beings that have contributed to our own (as well as those that have perished simply because we're alive). I think that over time we need to make economic choices (where we can) that promote better treatment of animals used for food and medicine.
Hmm. But how many lives have been sacrified (how many have suffered) needlessly. I think it should go beyond better treatment. I think we should extend equal moral consideration to all beings who have the capacity to suffer.
>Finally, I think that the "bias in favor of our own species" is hard-wired into our brains and is at least one reason for our survival so far.
Even if that *is* the case that doesn’t mean that it should *continue to be* the case. There is a maxim for that (acknowledgements to Kant) – You can’t derive an *ought* from an *is*. That is just to say that no matter how things *are* that really has no implications whatsoever with respect to the way things *should* be without the addition of extra premises. Even if violence is hardwired it does not follow from that that people *should* behave violently. And we are not obliged to excuse it because they are just acting in accordance with their nature. Not in the case of humans who have the faculty of reason. An adult human being should know better. This doesn’t apply to other animals because they do not have the capacity to transcend their nature.
> As we expand our compassion to include others, including other species, perhaps we will become more conscious of our interdependence and make better choices as a society.
I do hope so.
Thankyou for your thoughts, they are appreciated.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461882.html