Re: a chat about luncheon

[Paul Hubbard <curley_boy_99@yahoo.co.uk>]

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


First off, merry Christmas to all of you (I hope you
got what you wanted for Christmas ? I know I did!). 
Now, down to business:

On Christmas Eve, Alice posted a little moral teaser ?
in the form of a 'dialogue' ? for us all to ponder
over our Christmas dinners.  Originally, I was going
to reply to Alice's post, by inserting myself as a
character in her dialogue.  But, after an initial
attempt, I decided that my counter-arguments were
rather rubbish, and that, instead, I would make more
generalised comments upon the piece as a whole (which
other members could add to, if a full-blooded
discussion eventually spawned).

Now I think it is worth pointing out, at the start,
that I do not take a utilitarian approach to ethics. 
However, I can appreciate the basic point that Alice
makes throughout the piece: that we cannot fully
exclude animals from our decision-making processes
because, like us, they too feel pain.  The effects of
our actions have implications for those other than
ourselves, and therefore, since both animals and
humans feel pain, it is this shared aspect of our
lives in the world that seems the most logical
starting-point from which to develop a 'holistic'
system of ethics ('holistic' in the sense that it
makes reference to all living beings, not just human
beings).  But there are differences between my
understanding of what a human being is and Alice's. 
In the dialogue, Alice claims that humans are animals.
 Without going into drawn out detail here ? that would
take us off course ? I must say that I cannot agree. 
Human beings, it is true, share much in common with
animals (their physical and genetic make-up for a
start), but it is not enough to call humans 'animals'
on the basis of this ? what it is to be 'human' is
not: 'animal appetites' + 'Reason' (as some
traditional philosophies have made out).  We can
identify similarities between ourselves and the
animals (our feelings of pain Alice pointed out are
one of them) but such similarities, alone, are not
enough to prove the claim that humans are 'animals'
(full stop).

The problem, then, when it comes to making ethical
decisions, is in what way we can involve animals in
our decision-making processes, if they are not wholly
the same kind of beings as us?  Alice points out that
the 'species divide' is not relevant in our dealings
with animals, because the only thing that matters is
that our actions can cause them suffering (in the same
way the consequences of our actions can cause
suffering for each other).  Utilitarianism does not
consider ethics as being involved with 'duties', but
with 'interests'.  On this view, animals too can be
considered to have basic interests similar to human
ones (as all species that can feel pain have an
interest in its avoidance).  What impact does this
insight have on the way we think about ethics?  Even
if I do not agree that humans are animals, I cannot
deny, surely, that animals do not have the same BASIC
interests as us (even if I deny that all ethics can be
levelled down to mere 'interests')?  Perhaps this way
of looking at how we ought to be involved with the
animals in our world, demonstrates that consistency is
not the 'be all and end all' of ethical thinking. 
Perhaps it will be necessary to consider our dealings
with animals on the basis of their feelings of pain
(and their capacities for suffering as a consequence),
and our dealings with each other in a different light
? in order to do justice to the increased complexity
of our lives and interactions with each other?

Later on in the dialogue, both the 'armchair
utilitarian' and the 'Countryside Alliance
representative' attempt to defend the current state of
animal 'welfare' on our farms and in the factories. 
Here I must agree with Alice: saying that the current
state of the turkey (or dairy) industry is defensible
because it produces 'pleasurable states' for the
animals is utter nonsense.  (And saying, ?just buy
organic or free range? is also a cop-out.)  However,
it doesn't mean that just because the current state of
many of the industries that use animals is poor ? with
regard to the creatures' welfare ? that such
industries should be abolished.  In other words,
ethical vegetarianism (or any other 'food-based'
system of ethics) does not automatically entail
veganism.  Rather, if it is the case that our current
practices are harmful to the creatures involved (and
unnecessarily so) then we must aim to find alternative
methods of farming and food production that reduces
such harm.  Let me give you all an example of what I
mean:

Temple Grandin is a professor of animal science at
Colorado State University.  However, she has a history
of working on cattle ranches and in slaughter houses. 
The routine of cruel and unnecessary practices she saw
being inflicted on the animals there (similar to how
many of the turkeys were being treated in the previous
example: rough handling, execution equipment failing,
cramped conditions, separation of parents from
offspring etc) spurred her into developing new methods
of live-stock handling and the technology involved
with it.  (For more information see:
http://www.grandin.com)  As a result the suffering of
the cattle involved was dramatically reduced.  Now
Alice might argue that no suffering at all is better
than even the minimum of suffering ? but for that to
occur we would have to abandon animal farming
altogether, and that would create further ethical
difficulties:

Animal farming, both in the UK and the US, has been a
tradition for countless generations.   If the nation
suddenly woke-up one morning and decide to become
vegans, what would happen to the farmers whose
livelihood depended on a market for meat and other
animal produce?  They cannot simply down tools and get
an office job in the nearest town or city: farming,
and its methods, is their way of life ? it is all they
have known.  The suffering and anxiety caused by
having abandon a tradition dear to the heart (and
wallet) is surely far greater than the suffering that
the animals would undergo under improved methods of
treatment and live-stock handling?  Turkeys do not
have long-term memories, or a nervous system that is
as complex as ours (so their pain sensations may not
be as acute as our own).  If the improvements that
Grandin has made to the cattle farming industry could
be transferred to the other industries, then all the
birds would 'suffer' would be death itself.  But death
is not something one actually 'experiences'.  The pain
involved comes from the process of dying (if it is
drawn out, or due to illness); the fear involved come
from anticipation of 'the end'.  But if the conditions
the turkeys were kept and reared in were improved, and
the methods of handling and execution altered (so that
death was instantaneous) there would be virtually no
suffering at all: no physical pain for the turkeys
(and no anticipation of death, as they don't have the
capacity for it).

The role of those that campaign for animal 'welfare',
therefore, ought to be for improvements in the
conditions under which animals are kept (as opposed to
seeking an outright end to the practice of rearing
animals for food altogether).  There are numerous ways
of achieving this goal too.  At university level,
research ought to be carried out (in partnership with
the industries concerned) into how methods of rearing
and handling could be improved, as well examining the
mechanics of the technology used in the process.  At
the consumer level, we ought to consider the impact
our diet has on the world around us.  Certainly
veganism is a definite possibility for all of us that
live in the western world, but to take such a step
would have a hugely negative economic impact on food
producers (which in turn would create further
suffering, as outlined above).  Instead of cutting
meat and dairy products out of our lives altogether we
might consider reducing our intake or considering
vegetable-based substitutes (as too much red meat has
been linked to the development of some cancers,
according to certain studies).  Consumers could also
boycott producers that fail to implement measures that
ensure animal suffering is kept to a minimum ? thus
giving these producers an incentive to take animal
welfare seriously.  The impact of reduced consumer
demand for meat and dairy produce would put less
strain on farmers (thus making the need to employ
cruel methods to maximise output unnecessary).  If
some headway could be made here, then raising animals
for the production of food could be defended by
demonstrating that the lives they have on our farms
(well fed and free from predators) was a fair exchange
for their lives in pursuit of our continued survival ?
at present, the conditions under which many animals
are kept greatly affects the credibility of this
argument.

One final point.  In order for man to live in the
world, he must alter it to suit his needs.  The idea
of Nature as a 'mother' is a myth: the natural world
is a vicious struggle for survival, and in this
struggle man must make the world a habitable place for
himself in order to ensure his survival.  But we must
not mistake 'survival' for 'mastery' or 'ownership' ?
as natural disasters show us, continually: man can
never overpower nature.  We require space within the
world to live, but we must also ensure that we leave
space for other living beings in the world to live
'alongside' us.  Thus, our survival in the world must
not come about at all costs: because, as we have said,
the decisions we make affect all living beings in the
world, and not just ourselves.  I say all of this in
response to the concerns raised by the
'environmentalist'.  Our very existence in the world
requires that we displace other species; destroy their
habitats so that we may live (animals too intrude on
others' habitats in destructive ways).  But if we
reduce our demands for meat and other animal produce,
then the resources and space required for the 'raising
and grazing' of animals like cattle will be reduced ?
thus the impact on the environment, as a whole, is
reduced.

Phew, that is all for now; I look forward to reading
your responses!

P.S.  I am currently reading Peter Singer's 'Animal
Liberation', what has anyone else made of it?


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


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