Not Everyone Can Be A Vegetarian

There seems to be an assumption made by a lot of animal rights activists that anyone can be a vegetarian. Nobody has to eat meat; they choose to. Everybody can give it up if they try hard enough. This argument really bothers me. After reading "Animal, Vegetable, or Women?" by Katherine Paxton-George for my book review, I've become aware of the many reasons why people might not be as suited for vegetarianism as others. When I wrote my Q&A from a few months ago where we had to state under what conditions vegetarianism was morally obligatory, I kept thinking of more and more examples of cases where vegetarianism should not be morally obligatory. It got to the point where I was making so many "exceptions" to the moral superiority of vegetarianism, that it just didn't make sense to ever say that vegetarianism is morally obligatory. I can't even account for every reason somebody might have to eat meat. I personally can't be a vegetarian or vegan because I have a history of disordered eating. Despite the fact that I don't even like the taste of meat, officially banning it from my diet reminds me too much of when I would restrict my food intake for dieting purposes. Also, making food a moral issue (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't sometimes be a moral issue) reminds me of "good foods" and "bad foods" in the dieting/eating disorder world. I don't want the food I eat to define how good or bad of a person I am, even if it's somewhat true. It may sound like I am making this about myself, but people who claim that "anybody can be a vegetarian" and "nobody needs to eat meat" are making it about themselves by making themselves the standard for everybody else (if they can live without meat, then so can everyone else). So many voices have been silenced so that privileged groups can tell everybody else how they should be living their life, and that seems to counterproductive in a movement where there is supposed to be empathy for beings with less power and freedom.

A Consumer's Responsibility?

Today in class we discussed the fact that when you buy animal products, you are supporting a corrupt industry. Nobody wants to fund something that they believe to be immoral, whether it is animal or human exploitation, but is it the consumer's responsibility, or the industry's? I wonder if we are placing too much moral responsibility on the consumer. To be sure, consumers have a responsibility both to themselves and to society to be informed about their economic choices. But, as we have discussed in class, not everybody has complete autonomy over their options for where they shop, what they eat, and what they buy. Therefore, while I believe that consumers should definitely assume some responsibility for what they are putting their money into, I think we need to hold the corporations that we are opposed to primarily responsible. Supporting something immoral is obviously not good, but being immoral is the real problem. I think we spend a lot of time focusing on how to get people to stop indirectly supporting these corrupt systems, when we should also be challenging the systems themselves.

Response to Shelby, "Killing Animals and The Bible"

"So, my question is: does it matter from whence an ethic comes, if the ethic is correct?"

I think that it matters a lot. A person who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and a person who just doesn't eat meat because he or she doesn't like the taste of it probably won't have much in common. There are so many different paths that can lead to the right thing; what really matters is why somebody is doing (or trying to do) the right thing. I actually believe the opposite of what Shelby is saying; I think that a person's intentions matter more than the actual outcome. In other words, the ends do not always justify the means but the means might justify the ends. For example, somebody who is committed to the ethical treatment of animals, and tries really hard to be a vegan but slips up every once in a while is doing a better job of being a moral person than somebody who doesn't care about animal rights, but always refrains from eating animal products for other reasons (religion, health, personal preference).

Response to Hallie, "The Yuck Factor"

Hallie wrote that the "yuck factor" of animal experimentation, as well as examples brought up in class such as pedophilia and incest, is not enough to justify deeming it immoral. She says that, in the cases of pedophilia and incest, there may be a "yuck factor" because we have been socialized to view them as wrong, but they can also be proven immoral on more rational grounds. I think that pedophilia can be proven to be immoral, because it involves children who cannot consent, but incest between consenting adults does not seem to harm anyone, and I am not sure why we are morally opposed to it. As I brought up in class, there is the fact that children conceived through incest are more likely to have deformities, but that is not the only reason we don't like it. There is just something about incest that makes people feel uncomfortable. Hallie brings up the example of homosexuality, which I think is a good example of the "yuck factor". Many people would probably describe homosexuality the way I described incest; "there's just something about it that seems so wrong". "It's so unnatural". I agree with Hallie that these vague feelings of discomfort are not enough to deem something immoral. However, in that case I do not see why incest is illegal (and considered immoral). Does anybody have a good defense for the widely held claim that incest is immoral that doesn't involve the "yuck factor"?

Sacrifice and Vegetarianism

In class, we have talked about the ties between vegetarianism and religion. In our society, I think we tend to value people who are self-sacrificing. We see it as noble, even though it can be a bad thing. This probably stems from religion (martyrs, Jesus' death, etc). I don't know much about religion, but I was raised Catholic and I know that in church, everywhere you look, there is a depiction of Jesus on the cross. Dying for a cause can sometimes be a very noble and brave thing to do, but I take issue with our culture's glamorization of self-sacrificing. People who are constantly sacrificing their own happiness for others are unhappy, and nobody should have to live that way. I think this might tie back to vegetarianism, because for many people, giving up meat is a sacrifice. More extremely, starvation is a sacrifice many people make for religious or spiritual reasons. Though I am not suggesting there is a direct link between eating disorders and vegetarianism, I think that this element of sacrifice is present in both. Having the "strength" to give up types of food, or food in general, is seen as heroic and respectable. There is a book (which I have not yet read) called "Women, Food, and God", which argues that the way women eat can be traced back to their relationship with religion/God. I think this is interesting, and I think the way we value sacrifice in our society could have something to do with this.
Question: Other than the religious implications, why do we value sacrifice so much?

PETA is at it again

In response to the new TSA scans, in which people must go through an invasive full-body scan in order to fly on an airplane, PETA has released a new and insulting ad:

There is a lot that is wrong with this ad. It makes many assumptions, such as:

• Being vegan will necessarily make you healthier.
• Being healthy necessarily gives you a thin, "sexy" body.
• Vegans and/or healthy people can't be fat.
  
• The only reason people don't want to go through the TSA scans is because they are ashamed of their unattractive bodies, not because it is an invasion of privacy that many people are not comfortable with.

The last one is especially annoying to me. There are so many reasons people might not want a random person to see them naked; chances are it is not because they are embarrassed about how fat they are. I think PETA knows this, and they are making light of a serious problem and using it to further their agenda (and I'm not implying that there is anything wrong with their agenda, but the TSA debate has nothing to do with the ethical treatment of animals). Luckily, most airports refused to post these ads because they do not want to take a political stance on animal rights. That is the wrong reason for doing the right thing. These ads are meant to shame women (I wont believe that it's just a coincidence that it is a woman's body in the picture). Putting these ads out further contributes to the idea that women's bodies are public property, which is exactly what is wrong with the TSA scans in the first place (of course, both men and women are being subjected to TSA scans, but the scans are treating people's bodies like government property. And victims of sexual assault, which is usually women, are less likely to be comfortable with the body scans).
Question: Why is PETA the most well-known animal rights group if their methods of effecting change are so problematic?

Response to Todd, "The Shehitah"

Todd asked if tradition trumps morality. If something is a part of somebody's culture, can it still be deemed morally "right" or "wrong"? This depends on how you view morality. If you believe that morality is shaped by a person's culture and environment, and everybody has their own subjective idea of morality, then I think tradition would trump morality. However, if you believe that there is an objective morality that transcends people's constructed cultures and traditions, than tradition does not trump morality. I believe the latter argument. I think that what is "right" and "wrong" applies to everybody, regardless of who they are and what their traditions are. After all, it could be argued that it is just a part of American culture to fight wars, but that doesn't mean war is not ethically problematic. Challenging our actions on the basis of morality is hard, because nobody wants to believe that something that is an important part of their life (such as religion or culture) is wrong. However, the things that mean the most to us are the things that really need to be challenged.
Question: Do you think morality is objective or subjective?

Response to Shelby, "Animal Abuse, Domestic Abuse"

This is a response to Shelby's post "Animal Abuse, Domestic Abuse". Shelby linked to an article where the author notes that people tend to donate to animal shelters over battered women's shelters. I agree with some things the author said. I believe that it's easy to sympathize with animals because they are moral patients, so they can't do anything wrong, but when a human is in a bad state people ask "What did he/she do to deserve this?" or "Why did he/she let this happen?" People often think that a woman can leave her batterer at any time and it's her fault if she stays. However, an animal cannot choose to stay with an abusive owner. Even though battered women are autonomous beings, they are often so controlled and manipulated by their abuser that they lack any freedom to leave their situation. Because situations with humans are more complicated than situations with animals, the author thinks people will be more likely to sympathize with animals. However, I don't see why the author has to pit the two issues against each other. In fact, it is common for a batterer to also be abusive toward the family pet, so there is definitely some overlap between these two issues. Both animal shelters and women's shelters are important, and I don't think we need to talk about which one is more important, because they both are necessary. However, I think the ideal solution would be to rid the world of abuse so there wouldn't need to be shelters.

Question: How can we rid the world of abuse?

Response to Skyla, "Turkey Day"

My question to you is: What's so bad about tofurcky? What's it going to take for Americans to realize Thanksgiving is not about the 20 pound bird in the middle of the table but more about bringing family together? It's still Thanksgiving even if there isn't a turkey.

I agree with Skyla that the tradition of eating a turkey on Thanksgiving is problematic, but unfortunately that is just the beginning of the issues I have with Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is a holiday that glorifies the genocide of Native Americans. We all celebrate, give thanks, get together with family and friends, and eat good food, when we don't deserve to celebrate. Americans sometimes like to pick and choose parts of history that are more desirable and paint a prettier picture. Children are taught that the relations between "Indians" and Pilgrims were peaceful. Additionally, I have problems with the Thanksgiving season because Black Friday promotes consumerism and often goes hand in hand with violence. Two years ago, a man was trampled and killed in my hometown at Walmart. Our desire to get what we think is rightfully ours (and this can also be applied to our attitudes about getting land from the Native Americans) can end in tragedy. So, it is interesting to me that Thanksgiving combines the unethical treatment of animals, erasure of genocide, and consumerism gone violent in its traditions.

Question: How can we reform the traditions of Thanksgiving?

Response to Hallie

"This leads me to ask, if petkeeping does need to be eradicated, what is the best way to begin that process? Should we do it all at once, or take steps toward the goal?"

I definitely agree with Tom Regan that "incremental abolitionist change" is the best method for effecting change. This would mean that we would have to work nonviolently within the system to take steps towards abolishing the practice of pet-keeping. As we have discussed in class, while the nature of pet-keeping may be unethical, it would also be unethical to just let domesticated animals be free when they no longer know how to. The responsible thing to do would be to give animals the things they need to be free. However, we would have to be careful to make sure the ultimate goal is always to completely get rid of the practice of pet-keeping. Making conditions better for domesticated animals is not helpful; it is actually supporting the enslavement of animals. My question is, what, if anything, can humans do to "undomesticate" animals?

Response to "Understanding Animal Rights Activism As Functional Religion"

Wesley V. Jamison, Caspar Wenk, and James V. Parker compare animal rights activism to a cult-like religion in their essay "Every Sparrow That Falls: Understanding Animal Rights Activism As Functional Religion". I found their assessment of the animal rights community ridiculous and insulting. They point out that animal activism often requires "extraordinary levels of personal commitment and conviction", alienates people from their families and friends, encourages people to drastically change their lifestyles, and places more importance on animals than humans. The authors' critique of animal activism reminds me of the arguments I am often met with for being a feminist. For me, feminism is a huge commitment, a lifestyle, and something that does sometimes alienate me from other people. People often accuse me of caring more about women than men. These arguments clearly come from the same place that Jamison and his coauthors are coming from. The authors of this essay seem afraid of confronting the actual issue of animal ethics. If they paint animal rights activists as these crazy cult followers, we will just laugh them off and not take their view into consideration. Most of what the authors point out about animal activists is true: they do commit a big portion of their life to what they are passionate in, it does sometimes alienate them from their communities, and it often does lead to a lifestyle change. But what is so bad about all of this? Being deeply committed to a cause is admirable. As long as you aren't using violence or fear to spread your message, being passionate is a good thing. It seems to me like the authors feel threatened by the animal rights movement, so they are dismissing animal activists as silly and pointless so they don't have to listen. It is similar to when people say feminists are all "angry man-haters"; they are quickly dismissing a group of people so they don't have to hear their arguments.

Question: Did anybody agree with this essay? Why?

Response to Skyla, "People Who Look Like Their Dogs"

Is there a line being crossed when pet owners dress up their dogs to look like miniature humans? Is it wrong and unnatural to do this or is it just an innocent act, in your opinion? Why or why not?

There is usually no practical reason to dress up a pet in clothing, unless it is to keep the animal warm. It seems that this is usually done purely for entertainment purposes. It is possible that people do this to their pets because they see their pet as more of a person than an animal (which is funny to me, because some animal activists consider animals "persons", but probably would not approve of treating animals like persons in this instance). It is also possible that people dress up their pets because it is "cute" and "funny" to see an animal dressed like a human. I am inclined to think that dressing up animals is wrong because it is not necessary for an animal to be wearing a cute outfit. Then again, is it ever necessary for a human to wear a bikini, or a bow, or a Halloween costume? No, but for most people, it is a natural inclination to want to decorate oneself in some way from time to time. For humans, there are statements made by clothing. Clothing can be an expression of one's values, or it can just be something fun to do to one's body. But clothing rarely just serves a practical purpose for us. Perhaps people are upset by the idea of an animal wearing clothing because animals cannot consent to what is being put on their bodies. However, babies cannot consent to what is put on their bodies, and yet babies are often dressed up in silly outfits and costumes. What is the difference between dressing up a baby and dressing up an animal?

Lisences for Pet Owners?

In Bernard and Michael Rollin's article, "Ethics and Companion Animals", they propose that, in order to keep a pet, one should have to aquire a liscense that ensures he or she is knowledgable about how to care for the animal they wish to keep. This sounds like a practical idea, but what if we said that people had to aquire a license to have a child? On one hand, people who want to become parents probably should be knowledgable about how to raise childen. On the other hand, it might not be ethic to tell people how to raise their children. Everyone has a different idea about how to be a good parent. Similarly, pet owners probably wouldn't all agree to one way in which an animal should be cared for. Some pet owners might see their animal as a member of the family, while others might see it as a security system for their home. Some may see their animal as nothing more than an aid for blindness, and still other may want to dress up their pet in little costumes. Still, it is undeniable that basic knowledge about a dog breed would be helpful if one wishes to own a dog. But where do we draw the line? There is a lot of variety in the way pet owners treat their animals. Can we say that there is one "right" way?

Petkeeping vs. Zoos

What is the distinction between petkeeping and zoos? Zoos are morally questionable because they keep animals in a confined space for the purpose of entertaining humans. Petkeeping, like zoos, takes animals out of their natural habitat and keeps them in a confined space for human use. In both zoos and households with pets, the animals are usually cared for, and sometimes cared for well and loved. Other times, animal are abused. In both cases, the animal's welfare is in the hands of humans. Sometimes this is a good thing; sometimes it isn't. Many people argue that petkeeping is morally acceptable because they have given their pet a loving home, and without them, their pet would have no place to go. Similarly, some zoo animals may have been saved from dangerous situations and given a better life in a zoo. However, this doesn't address the issue of petkeeping or zoos as an institution. There are good and bad cases that come out of these institutions, but it doesn't mean that we can decide whether or not they are problematic based on these cases. Some marriages are loving, happy unions, and some are abusive and traumatic. We cannot critique the institution of marriage based on these cases, because there is so much variety in peoples' experiences. To evaluate the moral implications of petkeeping (and zoos), we must not focus on specific cases (both good and bad), but the suggestions zoos and petkeeping as institutions make about our relationships with animals. Perhaps petkeeping is seen as morally acceptable more often than zoos are because people have bonds with their pets that they are too scared too question. Since I am a person who has never had a pet or had an attachment to an animal, it is possible that I and people like me can look at the issue of petkeeping more objectively. It is also arguable that since I have never had a pet, I don't know what I'm talking about. Still, I can't help but see a similarity between the practice of keeping domesticated pets in your home and keeping pets at a zoo. What, if any, are the moral distinctions between these two practices?

Animals and Language

I know this is a little off topic from this weeks discussion of zoos, but I have been thinking a lot about language and animals lately. In Carol Adams' piece, "The Rape of Animals, The Butchering of Women", she says that phrases like "treating women like animals" or "pieces of meat" is damaging to the respectful treatment of animals. I am wondering if this is true. To compare a human to an animal is insulting. Animals are less intelligent than humans. We often say things like "you are acting like an infant" or "you're behavior is childlike" when we mean they are being immature. Is this insulting to children and infants? Is it offensive to compare humans to animals when we are insulting their intelligence?

Response to Skyla, "Animals as Clothing"

Skyla asked why our culture uses animals for clothing when there are so many other alternatives. I agree with Skyla that, in a society where there are plenty of alternatives, there is no moral justification to use animal skin for clothing. However, there are some explanations for this.

As Skyla stated, many people are not aware that they are wearing an animal product or byproduct. Most sneakers are made from leather unless otherwise stated. I know I did not know I was wearing sneakers made from cows until long after I became a vegetarian. So, a possible reason that people wear animal products is because they are not aware of what is in their shoes/clothing/etc.

As for more obvious uses of animals for clothing, such as fur, it is often a status symbol. This blog post really made me think about fur as a status symbol. The author argues that, for so long, White women wore fur because it was luxurious and fancy, and Black women were always denied this. Now that Black women may be able to afford the luxury of wearing fur, it can be symbolic for progress Black women have made. While I still do not think these explanations for the use of animals of clothing are morally sound, I think the contextual implications need to be considered.

Question: Is wearing fur morally justifiable?

Response to Todd's Argument For Hunting

Todd argued that subsistence hunting is the only morally defensible type of hunting. If people cannot get food from any other source, then we have no right to tell them they can't hunt. I agree with Todd that if hunting is necessary for some people to survive, then it is morally defensible for them to do so. However, I do not agree with how he got to that conclusion. Todd states that "An animal would kill to survive, so I justify it here on that basis" regarding hunting for food. In the beginning of the semester we discussed the fact that animals are moral patients and humans are moral agents. As moral agents, we can make "right" or "wrong" decisions. However, animals, being moral patients, cannot be held accountable for their actions. So, yes, an animal would kill to survive. And I happen to agree that humans can also kill to survive without being morally wrong. But you cannot make the jump from "animals do it" to "so we should do it too" without assuming that animals and humans both have the same capabilities of moral reasoning.

Question: Are there degrees of moral agency?

Response to Sarah, "Sliding Scale of Ethics"

Sarah argued that we should accept our family and friends for having different opinions than us. I think that there is a line where you shouldn't tolerate a family member or friend's views. As somebody else said in their blog, if the person is abusing an animal, you are obligated to speak up about that. I also believe that if somebody holds views that are ignorant and potentially dangerous, you should say something. You can challenge someone's beliefs politely without attacking them. In the case of hunting, it is most likely a hobby that people won't want to give up no matter what reasons you give. But I think you owe it to yourself to be honest about how you feel. It is hard to talk about touchy subjects, because people often get defensive and feel personally attacked. However, I think it's good to at least have conversations about these issues.

Question: Has anyone ever had a successful conversation with someone about animal rights?

Trophy Hunting: Harmful to Humans

Regardless of whether trophy hunting might be beneficial towards animals, the economy, or the population, trophy hunting is harmful to the hunter. Killing an animal and using it's body for food or clothing may be acceptable, but proudly displaying the dead body of an animal is not morally justifiable. Killing a human in self-defense is usually considered okay, but it would not be acceptable to hang up the head of someone you killed in self-defense on your mantle. There is no reason to use the body of an animal you killed as a "trophy". Trophy hunting places value on dominance, violence, and ownership of other bodies.

Kant argued that our duties towards animals are actually just duties towards humanity. Kicking a dog is not bad because it harms the dog, but because it harms the character of the human kicking it. While I don't agree with this line of thinking in every context, I think it can be applied to the issues of trophy hunting. Alastair Gunn gave good justifications for hunting in Zimbabwe, but I am still not convinced that the glorification of this violent act is justifiable. Using the dead body of an animal you killed as a trophy is harmful towards humanity.

Question: What is a good justification for the "trophy" aspect of trophy hunting?

Response to Shelby's "For Whom is Vegetarianism Morally Obligatory?"

Shelby argues that most people in developed countries could afford a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle if they sacrificed other "luxuries". Shelby also argues that food should be a top priority for humans, even more important than shelter. What do you consider a "luxury"? I don't think it's ethical to tell people, including poor people, how to spend their money. I can agree with you that food is very important, but it's not fair to expect everyone to feel the same way. If a poor family decides to spend money on Christmas presents for their children to make them happy instead of high quality food for a few months, then that is their choice. I personally don't know what it's like to live in poverty so I don't feel like I have the right to say what should be the top priority for a poor person, since I have never lived it.

Furthermore, as we briefly discussed in class, one must have access to knowledge about food, health, and the meat industry to make these informed decisions about their diet. So, even if people in poverty were making food a top priority, they still might not be able to maintain a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle. These disadvantages are much more than "inconveniences".

Question: Why have people stopped spending as much money on food?

Preference

We tend to prefer people that are our family or friends over people who aren't. We also tend to favor people who are from our communities over people who aren't. More controversially, humans tend to favor other humans that belong to their race, religion, gender, or country over people outside of these larger communities. These preferences are unfair because people are not more or less valuable based on how similar they are to us. We prefer people who are like ourselves because we can empathize with them more easily than people who are different from us. For example, when there is a news story of a white kid who brought a gun to school, or committed some type of violent crime, it is treated differently than when a young person of color commits a violent crime. When it is a young white person, everyone says "how could this be happening to our children?" When it is a young person of color, it is some "other" type of person that we feel no connection to. This happens because the media is generally controlled by white people, and people feel more empathy towards others that are "like them". This example of preferring beings that are more like oneself is wrong, and so is preferring a species that is more like oneself. Can our species bias be unlearned, or is it natural?

Ought Implies Can Part II: Food and Morality

In class we have talked about physical health and financial situations that would make it hard for someone to be a vegetarian. Something we haven't spoken about yet is psychological reasons for not becoming a vegetarian. When someone is recovering from an eating disorder they are often told not to restrict their diet. Having "off-limits" food can lead people back into eating disorder habits. Even for someone who has completely recovered from an eating disorder, they might have to follow this rule for the rest of their lives to avoid a relapse. For many people with eating disorders/disordered eating habits, they become a vegetarian or vegan, not for ethical reasons, but as a way to control their lives or as a form of self-punishment. Since many people have eating disorders (8 million Americans*), people who have psychological reasons for not eating meat are not a small exception; they are a large portion of the population. When we talk about people being "morally obligated" to adopt a certain diet, we are implying that people can be "good" or "bad" depending on what they eat. Our society has a tendency to assign morality to food and people who eat certain foods. For example, how often do we hear someone say "I was so bad last night. I ate a piece of chocolate" or "I need to be good for the rest of the week and only eat X amount of calories". Why is a person "good" or "bad" because of what they eat? Obviously, consuming animals has moral implications, but we should blame the industries that mistreat their animals, not regular people who are eating something that they have been exposed to their whole lives.

*http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm

"Ought Implies Can": A Response to "The Basic Argument For Vegetarianism"

In James Rachels' article, "The Basic Argument For Vegetarianism", he says that we should adopt a vegetarian diet because there is no real reason to eat meat; we can survive without it. He implies that the only reason people aren't ethical vegetarians is because they like the way meat tastes. Rachels is overlooking many people who do not have food security. Food security is when food is available and accessible to you. While buying vegetables may be cheaper than buying meat, to carefully plan out a diet that includes protein and iron from other sources takes time, knowledge, and probably more money. As Kathryn Paxton George points out in "A Paradox of Ethical Vegetarianism", not everybody has access to or can afford dietary supplements. Also, people are more likely to become an ethical vegetarian when they have access to knowledge about the way their food is made. Not everybody is privileged enough to go to college, or even finish high school. Because not all people have the same education level, not everybody is enlightened about the cruel ways animals are made into meat. So, people might not be able to be an ethical vegetarian because they 1) don't have access to all the foods/supplements necessary for a vegetarian diet and 2) don't have access to the knowledge that leads people to become ethical vegetarians. Rachels, and many other people who propose that everybody should adopt a vegetarian diet, are assuming that everybody can. Vegetarianism and veganism are lifestyles. It is an ethical decision to stop eating/using animal products but it also dictates the way a person will live. Since not all people have the same resources, it is unfair to assume that all people are capable of living their life a certain way.

Question: What changes need to be made so everyone can adopt a vegetarian/vegan diet?

Response to Bridgette-"Ethics of Hunting"

Bridgette talks about hunting in her post, and asks whether it is ethical to kill an animal if it is done painlessly. This goes back to Kaldewaij's argument about the harm of death. As I have said before on my blog, I don't think animals (or humans) are harmed by death, but I do think it is still unethical to kill an animal (or a human) unless there is a good reason to do so. A "good reason" would usually be in the animal's best interest (euthanasia) or self defense (an animal is attacking a human). I would not qualify hunting for food as a "good reason". Hunting for food is still hunting for sport- you're just being resourceful of what's left. It is not ethical to kill a human and eat his or her flesh except for maybe in extreme circumstances, because you don't need to eat human flesh in order to eat. You can get food from many other places. Similarly, it is not ethical to kill an animal for food because you don't need to get your food from animals. I am convinced that hunting is always done as a sport; people wouldn't do it if they didn't find it fun. I think people get a thrill out of killing something without being held morally responsible for it. Killing is power, and people like to feel powerful. Our culture is strangely fixated with killing and violence. It is in our everyday language; we use violent or rape imagery to convey an achievement ("We killed the opposing football team" or "I raped that math test"). Because this glorification of violence is so embedded in our culture, hunting might seem like no big deal, but if you analyze the arguments hunters give for what they do, it is clear that there is no moral justification for the sport of hunting.
Question: Is there another justification for hunting that I have missed?

Absolutism versus Incrementalism

Today in class we talked about absolutism and incrementalism. We discussed whether the meat industry should be reformed (incrementalism) or abolished completely (absolutism). I believe that, if there is something wrong with the world, we need to work towards getting rid of it completely, not making it a little less wrong. I understand that it is easier and probably more practical to just work within the system to make conditions a little better, but if you truly believe that animals deserve rights and freedom, then you are betraying yourself and your beliefs if you don't try to change the system. An incrementalist view is a compromise; matters such as life and death (and animal welfare is a matter of life and death) should not be handled this way. When slavery was still happening in the U.S., an incrementalist view of slavery could be "let's just try and make living conditions for slaves better. Abolishing slavery will never happen; we should focus our efforts on making slavery a little less miserable." The slavery analogy is dramatic, but it is a fair comparison. People sometimes don't realize that it is possible to change the world. You don't have to believe those pessimistic ideas that "that's just the way the world is" and "no one ever said life was fair". If you have a sense of what is right and what is wrong, then you should honor that by not compromising your beliefs. Question: What is a good defense of incrementalism?

Animal Consumption and Dominance (Response to Todd)

Todd suggested that perhaps we associate animal consumption with "strength" because we view the consumption of animals as a form of dominance. I think this is a really good point and I agree with it. We, as humans, are consumers in every sense of the word. We need to buy, eat, own, and dominate to feel superior. Humans value things like money, property, and goods. We also tend to value concrete things over abstract ideas such as love or happiness. We measure wealth by what tangible items somebody has. To love something, to nurture something, or to care for something is seen as "weak" and feminine (as if those two things are synonymous). Therefore, a vegan or vegetarian is seen as weaker than a person who eats meat because killing and consuming are seen as powerful (and masculine) things. Since our society values things that are typically masculine over things that are typically feminine, the violence and domination associated with consuming animals are considered positive. Question: Why does our society view violence and domination as a good thing, but view love and nurturance as a bad thing?

Response to Bridgette ("Harm From Death")

Bridgette asked if animals (and humans for that matter) truly are harmed by death, as Kaldewaij suggests, if they can't reflect on their lost time and experiences, since they are dead. I think this is a really interesting question. When I first read Kaldeqaij's article I agreed with her that animals are harmed by death. However, now that I'm thinking about it more, I think it is morally wrong to unnecessarily end an animals life, but it does not harm the animal. If an animal isn't aware that it is about to die, or it isn't capable of understanding the concept of death (these are two big ifs), then it is not harmed by a painless death. I would say the same thing for humans; if a human wasn't aware that it was about to die then I don't think the human was harmed (if it was done painlessly). I understand I am taking some leaps here by saying that 1) the death must be painless, 2) the animal can't know it is going to die, and 3) the animal can't understand the concept of death, but if these three things are true then I don't agree with Kaldewaij that animals are harmed by death.

With that being said, I do think it is morally wrong to end an animals life (not including special cases). Even though an animal wont know it is missing out on its future, you are still taking something from the animal. If you steal from somebody, and the person never notices, it was still wrong. However, maybe this is like Kant's argument about kicking the dog; it is morally wrong to steal from someone who wont notice or end an unsuspecting animal's life because it harms the character of the person doing these things. My question is: Do we tend to do the right thing because it is good for other people, or because it is good for ourselves?

Animal Rights and Young People (Response to Shelby)

Shelby asked "Did you ever have the revelation of realizing that the meat you were eating was an actual, once living animal? How did this affect your diet?". I can't remember when I made the connection about what meat actually is, but when I was 8 or 9 I became a strict vegetarian (without the help of my parents, something that I now realize was probably dangerous) as a protest of the meat industry. I was very vocal about animal rights, but for some reason people never took it seriously. My parents tried to be respectful, but my brothers, cousins, friends, and even aunts and uncles would taunt me about my decision. They would shove meat in my face, chase me around the yard with it, and make rude "jokes" about my vegetarianism. People also always tried to talk me out of my decision. They would say things like "Oh come on, it's already dead, what difference does it make if you eat it now?" Somehow they couldn't understand that I didn't want to participate in a violent and abusive tradition. When I was ten, I wrote a complaint letter to McDonalds for using animal fat in their french fries. I also "protested" outside of McDonalds with posters I made. Even though I think it's important for young people to start becoming passionate about issues, and even though those things I did were significant in my development as a political and opinionated person, people again treated me as if I was silly for caring so much.

Question 1: Why are people concerned with animal rights often not taken seriously?

Question 2: Why are young people concerned with anything not taken seriously?

Response to "In Defense of Lady Gaga"

Becca wrote a post defending Lady Gaga's "meat dress" because in some sense, it was subversive and challenging to our social norms. She argued that one interpretation of the dress is that it brought attention to the objectification of both women and animals. In a way, I see Becca's point, because this dress probably caused a lot of people to think about the way we treat both animals and women, but just because something generates good discussion doesn't mean it is good in itself. The fact is, Lady Gaga objectified both herself and animals. If that starts a discussion about the objectification of animals and/or women-while those discussions are important to have-it doesn't justify the dress itself. I always wonder why people think things like this are subversive; she is not truly challenging our society for objectifying women, she herself is participating in the objectification of women and animals. Just because she brought attention to this issue doesn't mean it was an appropriate way to protest it.

It is very common for people to use shock value in order to get a message across. I have already blogged about PETA's horrible tactics for raising awareness to their issues. People go to shock value because it is easy. Doing something shocking will catch people's attention; educating people on the issue you are interested in is a lot harder. Keane posted this quote recently: "noble things are difficult." I think this is usually true. It is hard to promote change for important issues, but you have do it the right way in order for it to have any merit.

Question 1: Are there any redeeming qualities about using a "shock value" tactic?

Question 2: Is Lady Gaga's meat dress any worse than wearing leather or fur?

Hierarchical Thinking

When we talk about issues such as animal ethics, the discussion about who deserves rights often leads to hierarchical thinking- that is, ranking things in order of how much they matter (often in relation to the person doing the ranking). It may be human nature to want to categorize everything and place a certain value on everything, but that does not mean it is correct to do so. It is important to recognize that things we cannot directly relate to, such as animals, are simply different than us, not necessarily better or worse, smarter or stupider, more important or less important. Somebody said in class that is impossible to get rid of our human bias, and it's not wrong to have it. While this is true, we need to keep in mind that since we can't think independently of our experiences as human, we also can't truly judge the value of an animal, because we are not objective (and never will be). We can all probably agree that the quote "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" is speciesist, but no human would trade their life for a pig's because we will always prefer our own species over another. It's not our fault that we have this bias, but we have to be aware of it and we shouldn't categorize things in relation to us. We show preference towards animals that are more like humans (such as apes) over animals that don't have many human-like qualities (such as ants). These preferences rely on the premise that human-like traits are the criteria for moral consideration. This is problematic because it is a form of prejudice; it is favoring sameness over difference. We need to accept differences as just that: differences, not deficiencies.

Question: If animals have some skills that humans lack (such as a dog's sense of hearing), why do we still place humans at the top of the hierarchy?

Response to Kim (Pets)

Kim asked if it is morally acceptable to own a pet. I haven't read Cavelieri's piece yet, but I do not think it is morally acceptable to own a pet. Using an animal for food or clothing is usually done in an unethical way, but at least there is a logical motivation for doing these things (obviously we don't need animals to eat or wear clothes, but all I am arguing here is that we are using animals for basic human necessities). However, animals used as pets are being taken out of their natural environment and lifestyle to keep humans company. The domestication of animals is/was unethical because, as Kim said, it is a major interference with their lives, and the reason for doing this is not justifiable. With that being said, I would be open to an argument saying that companionship is a basic human necessity, and it is ethical to use animals to suit this need of ours. I would probably argue, though, that while companionship is necessary to humans, we don't need animals to be our companions, though I'm sure that for some people, animals are all they have. Is the need for companionship a good justification for the domestication of animals?

Animal Testing

Both Singer and Donovan addressed the issue of experimental testing on animals, but I felt that both authors sort of danced around the issue without getting to the heart of it(at least in the excerpts we read). Both authors acknowledged that animal testing is often done cruelly and is not always necessary, but there must be some things that we need to test on animals. I understand that essentially torturing an animal just to see what happens is wrong and needs to end. However, what about the cases where animal testing really does help save many human lives? While these circumstances may not be as common as we would like to believe, don't they still happen sometimes? Most people would probably agree that it is unethical to experiment on an animal if it is not necessary, or if it is done cruelly, but is it unethical to test on animals otherwise? Alex said in class that every FDA-approved drug must be tested on animals (correct me if I am remembering this fact wrong). In that case, there are many important drugs that must have been tested on animals. Is it ethic to test on animals if it is for a good cause and isn't done cruelly? Is it even possible to test on animals without cruelty?

Response to Skyla

Skyla pointed out that "meat is masculine", and our society essentially "genders" food. While this is true, I would like to argue that both sides of the "meat" debate use sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as a tactic to push their agenda. There is a book that just came out entitled "Meat is For Pussies". It is exactly what it sounds like; it argues that men can be "real men"(strong, tough, "kick ass and take names", etc) by going vegetarian (I haven't read the book, but I got all of my information about it from its official website: http://www.meatisforpussies.org). This is problematic because not only is it enforcing gender roles on men, but it is sinking to the extremely low tactic of comparing something to female genitalia in order to make it look bad. More well known, though, is PETA(People for Ethical Treatment of Animals)'s use of sexist, racist, sizeist, and probably many other bad tactics to protest the unethical treatment of animals. I'm not going to post any of their ad campaigns here, because I find them disturbing and others might too, but if you google "peta" and the '-ism' of your choice you will find plenty. Their ads are humiliating, degrading, and insulting towards whoever they are targeting (though it is most often women, from what I have seen).

In the introduction of "The Animal Ethics Reader", the authors describe the "Extension Thesis"-the idea that people who are concerned with one oppressed group will often extend their concern to other oppressed groups. I believe that, when someone is concerned with one oppressed group they should be concerned with others, and they can't logically justify only defending one group. However, time and time again people have essentially thrown one group under the bus in order to push their own issues (and this is not just in the animal rights movement. It can be found in the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and the contemporary gay rights movement). Instead of everyone being concerned with oppression in general, they are often only concerned with the only oppression they personally have experienced. My question is, if the Extension Thesis makes sense in theory, why is it not usually accurate in mainstream resistance to oppression?

EDIT: I just want to add a quote from Audrey Lourde: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. " To me, this is saying that you can't end oppression using the same "tools"-humiliation, degradation, disrespect- the oppressor uses.