Animal Rights + Ethics
Image via Peter Nijenhuis, 2010
Going into this unit about animal ethics as someone who already practices vegetarianism and avoids animal products as often as possible, I already had my own set of thoughts and opinions about animal consumption. As you can imagine, some of the scholarship and philosophy we read in class made me pretty uncomfortable - especially that which came from Aristotle, Descartes, and St. Augustine, who all believed that animals were ‘naturally inferior’ to humans because they presumably ‘lacked the capacity for rational thought’. Obviously, at the time this scholarship was conceived, technology was different and thus human’s ability to understand animals was limited. That being said, I also was upset by and uncomfortable with a lot of the more modern scholarship we studied as well - regardless of its position on animal consumption.
Animal Ethics & Anthropocentrism
To me, It seemed like many of the scholars and philosophers we studied preached specific ‘extremes’ about animal consumption, without acknowledgement of a middleground, or limitations to their beliefs. Comparing humans and animals directly seems unfair in my opinion, since we are entirely separate species that, as Thomas Nagel has made so clear, will never fully understand one another. Because of these differences in kind and experience, I found our discussions about animal ethics to be unfairly anthropocentric.
Aristotle's Rationalism and Descartes' "Animal Machines"
The most troubling scholarship for me came from Aristotle and Descartes, due to their blatant disregard for animal’s experience of pain. Aristotle’s belief in the three souls - nutritive, sensible, and rational - completely ignores even the possibility that animals may possess rational thought or (at the very least), the capacity to feel pain. Expanding this, Descartes reduced animals’ experience of pain to a mechanical response not indicative of any actual feelings. Aristotle and Descartes are using animals’ perceived lack of human abilities as grounds for their abuse and consumption, an approach which is mirrored by scholars on the opposing side of the debate.
Limitations of the Pro-Animal Arguments
Jeremey Bentham, who opposed Aristotle and Descartes’ assumptions about animals, pioneered the ‘most pleasure and least pain’ approach, known as utilitarianism. However, even Bentham’s pro-animal rights philosophy was based on commonalities between humans and animals. Rather than using rationality or speech as the grounds for moral consideration, Bentham focused on animals’ capacity for pain. His argument, then, was that animals feel pain like humans do, and thus they should be involved in our moral judgements. Likewise, Tom Regan’s approach to animal ethics was to argue that human infants and severely intellectually disabled individuals have equal capacity for rationality as animals do, and thus it’s illogical to see animals as ownable, killable, or edible if we do not perceive these specific subgroups of humans that way. Using animals' similarities to humans as a warrant for their rights makes me uncomfortable, because I believe that animals' mere existence as living beings is justification enough for them not to be killed.
Here's a YouTube link to a (very low quality) video of one of Tom Regan's speeches on animal rights. Anthropocentrism, in my opinion, is very prevalent throughout.
Why must we first compare animals to humans in order to decide whether it is okay or not okay to eat them? Is their existence as living beings not enough?
Comparing animals to humans in order to justify their right to life is inherently anthropocentric, as is using their perceived lack of human abilities (rational thought, pain, judgement) as a justification for their murder and exploitation.
Reflection: An Incomplete Discussion
This unit challenged my opinions on animal ethics from day one, forcing me to consider things I had never had to think about before. However, as a vegetarian myself, I’ve always made it a priority of mine not to ‘preach’ my lifestyle to others. I’ve always recognized that a plant-based diet is possible for me because of my privilege, and I was shocked that our conversation about animal ethics lacked this recognition. It was really troubling to hear scholars imply that the only morally correct way of life is a plant-based one, because it is so inaccessible. Factors like income and location majorly impact one’s ability to adjust their diet, especially considering how expensive meat and dairy substitutes have become. Another consideration (and a less considered one, a lot of the time) is the ableism that often comes with discussions of veganism or vegetarianism. Plant-based living is often preached as ‘healthier’, though depending on someone’s physical ability or condition, that may not be the case. I wish that we had spoken about this more in our lectures and seminar discussions, because I believe plant-based living simply isn’t realistic for so many people, regardless of what their morals might be.
Expanding The Conversation
Above is a blog post written by Michele Kaplan, a disabled, vegan, feminist. I think she really effectively captured the issues and controversies that surround conversations about veganism and ability, and her perspective is a unique and important one.
In this piece, Ryan Wen takes a very holistic approach to the discussion about veganism and privilege that I think is an important read, and incredibly interesting to think about now that I know so many more philosophical perspectives.