Life is desirable, everybody agrees about that. The farming industry breeds billions of animals every year that would never been alive if we didn't demand meat. By demanding that we close down farms animal rights nuts are actually denying millions of animal's life. Yes, yes, I know that their life is usually unpleasant but millions of humans have unpleasant lives but you don't hear that many voices actually saying they would be better off if they hadn't been born (not in public anyway). Anyway the point is not to stop them existing, it's to get them a better life by improving conditions in the farms. Of course this is only remotely practical if people are willing to pay for it and that will only happen if they can eat the animals. Suffering may harm the animals but death does not. They don’t fear death like humans; they don't know it's coming at all. And they can't know what they are being brought up for. A painless death ends no hopes or dreams, it doesn't harm them.
So, eating meat and consuming animal byproducts is good, it is a plausible way of providing pleasant, happy lives to billions of animals. Humans should be so lucky.
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leo Tolstoy
Friday, April 07, 2006
Opposite day!
Following a trend on the blogosphere I'll be inviting a friend of mine “Steve” to make an argument that I disagree with. So why don't you point out where Steve goes wrong.
Steve, your argument makes a lot of sense. The only thing I would add is that the main problem is that people don't pay enough for the meat they eat. If they paid more then conditions on the farms would be much better. This would be the real animal-lovers' paradise - more animals and happier animals.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem here is peoples' innate miserliness. Obviously almost all meat eaters can afford to pay a lot more for the meat they eat. The only reason they don't is because they don't care enough about animals. And, crucially, they can get away with it, because the animals are powerless. Animals simply don't have any choice but to accept the measly amounts that humans pay to eat them and are therefore forced to live in terrible conditions while they are alive.
The solution, as with so many things, is for the government to step in and protect the interests of animals by forcing people to pay more if they want to eat them e.g. by heavily taxing meat and channelling the proceeds towards improving the living conditions of animals. Meat eaters will complain, but they are clearly in the wrong and nearly everyone agrees that it is the reponsibility of government to ensure that every person does what is right.
In my mind, the argument suggested by Steve, is only plausible if one believes that animals are not harmed by death. While animals might not fear death in the same way that we do, nor mourne the loss of loved ones to the same degree (there is evidence that many animals do mourne), their life is valuable to them, especially if it is a happy life. So why should we cut this short at our whim?
ReplyDeleteIt is argued today that all humans have an equal right to life. They don't have to "qualify" for this right by being a certain race, above a certain IQ or listing several successes behind their name. We don't believe that an ambitious young businessman has more right to life than a quiet simpleton who may lead a simple life in the countryside. Nor would we deprive a mentally disabled people their right to life and do with them as we please. If this argument holds for humans, I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to animals.
My second point is, that meat consumption won't disappear over night, so animals won't suddenly be without homes, if vegetarianism increases. Farmers will simply starting breading less and less. The space taken up for cattle or sheep could then be used partially for plant cultivation (if conditions suitable) and as a space where animals could possibly live naturally.
p.s. considering that most people will never become vegetarian anytime soon, the best we can hope for is better conditions on farms for animals. If the price must increase, then so be it. I think that unfortunately it is a very political issue.