the value of animal life

[David Mitchell <david.mitchell@new.oxford.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Should we eat meat?

	As I think has already been mentioned, the debate about the morality of meat eating can be reduced to one central issue, whether or not it is morally justified for man to kill animals. This question then is separable from the political/economic issue of how we organise food production, and whether it is possible or desirable to produce meat which does not involve undue suffering to non-human creatures. As such the vegetarian?s argument seems to depend upon the contention that meat eating is unjustified because it entails the immoral slaughter of living animals. Therefore we need to assess whether painlessly killing animals is indeed morally wrong.
 
To begin with, the reason we should consider killing other humans as wrong is because of the intrinsic value of each human life. This value derives from mans rationality which establishes the possibility of his freedom, his ability to make of himself what he chooses. It is this freedom then which is also mans individuality, and consequently which sets up each human life as potentially unique and therefore precious. Further it can be argued that this individuality is what defines art as mans highest achievement, both in terms of its creation and its appreciation.

	In contrast animal life possesses no intrinsic value precisely because it is incapable of any such individuality. This is because non-human animals have no capacity for reason, and therefore can not be anything other than examples of a particular nature. In other words, animals are their natures and in this sense have the existence of objects, which are whole in themselves and fulfil a predetermined nature. For instance a cat can not be anything other than a particular instance of a cat, just as a chair can not be anything other than a chair. The collorary to this is that the lives of non-human animals have no intrinsic value since, like other objects, they can not posses any genuine individuality. Thus even if it is wrong to make animals suffer it can not be wrong to take their lives, therefore meat eating is justified.

	I acknowledge that this argument holds only if the particular view of the value of human life outlined is accepted. On this score those who endorse a utilitarian ethic will inevitably disagree with me, since they will say life is justified if it is overall pleasurable, and the lives of animals undoubtedly can be. However I explicitly reject the view that pleasure is what can justify life, or imbue it with intrinsic value, therefore i do not see this as an important objection. Note also that the account of the value of human life given is just a sketch, and a full defence of this position would require a much more extended discussion. In any case I think there is much food for thought?

David


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm