On Friday I read this interesting Op-ed piece in the New York Times. It's entitled "Humanity even for non-humans" and it addresses many of the points that were brought up in our discussion 2 weeks ago on the Consider the Lobster Article. The main point of the article is that animal rights are pretty much on the main agenda in modern industrial societies in a way that those same societies, including our own, could never have imagined a few decades ago. It is written by Nicholas Kristoff, a pretty famous op-ed writer who normaly comments on world events and economic matters, which says something about just how mainstream the issue has become, if he finds it important enough to comment about. He draws parallels to the philosophical debate on slavery and womens rights, citing philosopher Jeremy Bentham who first asked the question underlying the argument that we have a moral obligation to animals: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
The article also mentions the man that Kristoff credits with originating the trend, a professor named Peter Singer. What I found really interesting is that when Kristoff asked Singer what the extent of his boundaries were. Singer seems to have adopted a somewhat logically inconsistant view of our moral obligation to animals, doing the same sorts of things that many of us do, constructing convienient reasoning to support his views. The following passage is just an example.
In recent years, the issue has entered the mainstream, but even for those who accept that we should try to reduce the suffering of animals, the question remains where to draw lines. I eagerly pushed Mr. Singer to find his boundaries. “Do you have any compunctions about swatting a cockroach?” I asked him.
“Not much,” he replied, citing reasons to doubt that insects are capable of much suffering. Mr. Singer is somewhat unsure about shellfish, although he mostly gives them the benefit of the doubt and tends to avoid eating them.
Free-range eggs don’t seem offensive to him, but there is the awkwardness that even wholesome egg-laying operations depend on the slaughtering of males, since a male chick is executed for every female allowed to survive and lay eggs.
I really recomend this article, as it definatley hits on some key points in relation to the whole eating animals debate. Personally, I agree with Kristoff and think that this debate is definately something that will grow louder, and I just wonder, as he does, if it will continue to push boundaries or if we'll come up with reasoning that allows us to continue our current practices.I'd like to know what everyone thinks about it.
I read that same article. I found it interesting, as well, that British Parliament tried to get a bill passed banning the abuse of horses in 1821. I've said this before, but I believe human industry, agriculture, and manufacturing is all about profit at the expense of whatever creature or creatures that happen to be in the way. Kristof poses a question to farmers in the article, remember?..."If we were to treat chickens and livestock in a more humane manner, how would it affect production cost?" I agree with you that we as a World are taking this matter more seriously than decades ago...Just a little over 5 decades ago, we were slaughtering people. In studying a bit on Eugenics, the attitude of the Germans toward the Jews (to mention only one type, there were many other "vermon" executed) was not only inhumane and criminal, but barbaric uncivilized. Tell me, what kind of "reasoning" was "being at work" here?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought this article to my attention, it's hopeful that animal rights and welfare are finally getting some serious coverage. I also appreciate that they brought up the correlation with activists of the past, such as those for womens' rights. As I'm doing my paper on ecofeminism and its relationship with environmental philosophy, these similarities are extremely important to my argument. Quoting Kant's "Can they suffer?" is both succinct and very truthful, but a point which seems to be easily and often forgotten when domineering over 'weaker' beings.
ReplyDelete