Discourse on Animal Rights

         
told you all this philosophy nonsense would do your heads in

 An anthropocentric perspective assumes that humans are at the centre of the universe, therefore everything within it is there for human benefit, for humans to exploit for their self gratification, regardless of harm or suffering to: planet, ecosystem, species or individual being.

The ecocentric view is that humans are a part of the ecosystem and interact with it.  That we, rather than being central to the universe, are but a small, but integral part of it.  And that, as intelligent beings, humans have a responsibility of stewardship to the planet and to all ecological life.  That humans have no right to assume ownership, nor to damage or cause to suffer, those things, creatures or systems that have a right to exist in their own right.  This is not to say that humans are unimportant, on the contrary, even future generations of humans and peoples in other lands are valued when considered from an ecocentric perspective.  Also to damage the balance of the planet’s ecosystem by not respecting the necessary diversity of living things is to ultimately bring irrevocable harm to the human species.

We owe it ourselves and to the future of our own species to adopt an ecocentric position and to reject the damaging failure of anthropocentrism - it is time for Ecologism!

Discourse on Rights & Welfare - Human and Animal

---

Food, Health, Ethics & Choice

Consumer industries are painfully aware of public concern for ‘the ethical treatment of animals’ in the process of food and other consumer production.  There has also been fierce public debate over the use of animals in medical research.  Likewise, public health risk reports concerning animals and food production, and a recent outbreak of swine fever in East Anglian pigs, have damaged the reputation of the food industry and put many livestock farmers livelihoods in jeopardy.  Public health risks include Salmonella and E.Coli bacteriological food poisoning, BSE/CJD (so-called mad cow disease) and the carcinogenic risk of eating red meat [1].  Medical research consistently shows that meat eaters are at far greater risk of suffering from cancer, heart disease, and early death from all causes, than are vegetarians.

In the light of, public opinion becoming increasingly sympathetic toward animal welfare and continuing health problems; ecological and environmental damage resulting from modern trends in food production, will the food industry need to radically adapt to a new food culture?  Or are recent concerns merely a temporary glitch in the longstanding practice of using animals in the production of food for humans?

Can the competitive nature of global capitalist economics sustain environmental harmony and continue to meet demands for cheaper food in western societies while millions in the third world are starving?  Scientists are currently testing genetically modified crops (GM), which they say could solve some of the problems of  third world hunger, but there are concerns about environmental risks and that GM will be controlled by global economic institutions that are inherently motivated by profit and unlikely to be philanthropic in their desired outcomes.  The production of meat is an inherently inefficient luxury for affluent economies, compared to many in the third world who lack even sufficient grain to stay alive and healthy.  Apart from the inefficiencies involved, it is argued that widespread meat production in wealthy western countries contributes to third world deprivation economically and through environmental damage [2].  So the consumption of meat is a challenge to both animal’s rights to life without pain and suffering and the welfare of humans in environmental and economic terms.

The problem for the food industry is to gauge the level of public concern over the issues of cruelty to animals, health risks, environmental damage and economic and energy costs incurred in meat production.  If the level of public concern on these issues warrants consideration, the food industry may wish to respond with a range of attractive alternatives at competitive prices.  The problem for consumers wishing to avoid animal products for ethical, personal health environmental, or humanitarian reasons is one of limited choice.  Whether choosing food for home preparation, attending a dinner party with friends or eating out at a restaurant the meat and two veg culture will be apparent.  Many people consider a meal incomplete without meat or fish and the vegetarian alternative is often to simply omit the meat from the meal, or to offer bland pasta type dishes with a cheese sauce, which is no option for vegans who avoid all animal produce including dairy products.

“Until we extend our compassion to all living things humanity will not find peace” – Dr Albert Schwietzer

 “ Whenever people say ‘we mustn’t be sentimental,’ you can take it they are about to do something cruel.   If they added,  ‘we must be realistic,’   they mean they are going to make money out of it.” – Brigid Brody

---

Animal Aid  - “there is a relationship between eating red meat and cancer” - UK Government Medical Officer- www.animalaid.org.uk

Hill, J L [1996]: 127-147

---

SUSTAINABILITY, RIGHTS & WELFARE

 Eco Vegetarianism

Eco-feminists proport to have an affinity with animals and associate women’s oppression with environmental oppression and with ecological oppression.  However, not all ecologists are vegetarian, but many are now identifying links between ecological damage and the escalation in animal based food production; replacing plant crop farmland and forested acreage with grazing pastures.

Sustainable Lifestyle & Feeding Humanity

Eric Markus[1] criticises human overpopulation and argues that farming animals to feed an escalating population of humans is an inefficient method of production.  To feed starving people in third world countries by farming cereals and non animal foodstuff, rather than animal products, would bring about economic efficiencies that could be directed toward re-distribution, in the short term, and sustainable self-help projects, in the long tem, for people in these areas.  Bodhipksa[2] also gives an account of the inefficiency of farming animals for food.  He argues that animal farming is intrinsically wasteful of land; destroying 25 % of the forests of Central America and 40 million hectares of the Amazon Jungle has been cleared for beef production, most of which could never recover.  ‘Deserts all over the world are expanding as overgrazing leads to soil depletion; our forests produce the very air we breathe, yet we are destroying them to make beefburgers[3].  It takes 10 kilograms of plant protein to produce 1 kilogram of animal protein.  If a field is capable of producing 10 tonnes of Soya beans and we fed them to cattle we would lose 90% of its protein and energy value than if we fed it directly to humans.  These statistics do not enhance, directly, the animal rights argument except to detract from the anthropocentric argument that humans need to exploit animals for food.

Energy & Natural Resources

Beef production uses vast quantities of water often in areas where water is a scarce and precious commodity.  Animal farming energy is also an inefficient use of fossil fuels.  It has been estimated that 500 grams of steak from intensively reared cattle uses 2.5 kilograms of grain, 10,000 litres of water, the energy equivalent of 4 litres of petrol and 16 kilograms of topsoil[4].  Intensive beef production is very wasteful of fossil fuels.  In America, intensively reared beef cattle consume 33 calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy they produce.[5]  This short-sighted squandering of the planet’s resources is surely not sustainable?

Ecological Damage

Destruction of hedgerows, felled forests, drained marshland, as well as the damage to rainforests and the creation of deserts cited above are just some examples of the ecological damage that the ever increasing demand for grazing farmland has caused.  It is also estimated that cattle and sheep produce around 80 million tonnes of methane, which is a greenhouse gas, every year[6].

Another recent concern is the introduction of genetically modified crops (GM) and Lord Melchett[7] expressed his objections recently on the BBC Analysis discussion programme[8], citing the risk presented by the release of GM organisms, which could possibly cause very serious and irreversible global environmental damage.

 

Rights & Welfare

Human Welfare

Food safety and personal health are often cited as reasons that people follow a vegetarian diet.  Recent problems in the food industry have accelerated the drift toward vegetarian diets.  Food health problems have dogged the political agenda for some time, from local food licensing authorities to the legislative bodies of the European Union and world food agencies[9].  There have been many epidemics reported of salmonella and E.coli food poisoning (often terminal) caused by inadequate hygiene standards[10]. This has led to the setting up of the Food Standards Agency by the newly elected Labour Government in 1997[11].  Food hygiene and health problems are related, almost exclusively, to animal products and meat retailing procedures.  Abattoir procedures have been monitored, modified and inspected, because of the crisis in the beef industry with BSE,[12] which has contributed to a fifty year decline in the consumption of meat in the UK.  Conversely, despite reports of chickens being housed in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions[13], the poultry, or white meat side of the industry has experienced an increase in sales over a similar period[14].  There are probably more ‘personal health conscious’ vegetarians than ‘animal welfare conscious’ ones, and many ‘vanity conscious’[15] and ‘fitness conscious’ people abstain from eating meat.

Animal Rights

Jon Nuttall[16] argues that if all humans became vegetarians then farm animals would have to be slaughtered.  So from a utilitarian point of view meat eating would seem not to be wrong,  But they are destined to be slaughtered anyway, because that is their purpose as far as the farmers are concerned and if they are being cruelly treated and suffering, as is often the case, then a shortening of their life would count as a release from suffering.  Farmed animals are a product of human intervention by selective breeding, or genetic engineering and as such would not be alive if it were not for human desire to eat meat.

This does not however mean that we have a right to cause them pain and suffering.  If those who were alive did not procreate, but were allowed to grow old and die naturally without needless suffering then the best outcome scenario would have satisfied the utilitarian ideal.

Regan and Singer argue a case for animal rights invoking the ‘argument from marginal cases,’ which draws also upon Richard Rider’s ‘speciesism argument.’  It compares infants and the mentally disabled[17] to animals, for the purpose of illustrating the similarity as far as their ability to be conscious of and to reciprocate rights bestowed upon them.  It is generally agreed that these ‘marginal cases’ have rights, not to be eaten or experimented upon, so it, then follows that to deny similar rights to animals is, as Rider called it, ‘speciesism[18]’.

It has been argued that ‘marginal cases’ are different from animals, in that infants will be adult humans, and the mentally disabled would have had the status of full moral agents, if they had not been as unfortunate as they were.  This argument appears to be ‘dancing through philosophical hoops’ to desperately deny animals the right not to suffer.  If moral argument has to resort to  “ifs, ands”  and  “would haves” in this context, then it is at least weak if not flawed.  Extrapolation of the hypothetical into the factual to justify a fundamental moral principle could lead philosophical debate down a ‘slippery slope[19]’ to incredulity.  For example, it could be argued here that if evolution had taken a different turn, then apes would be debating whether to grant humans with rights as moral patients.  This could be called the ‘Planet of the Apes argument.’

It is possible to distinguish between normal adult humans, as moral agents, and infants, the mentally disabled and animals as moral patients.  Whilst rights assigned to moral agents are ‘active’ rights of self determination, moral patients can be assigned ‘passive rights’ that do not carry the power to determine the nature of their rights and obligations, assigning the responsibility for ensuring their well being to other moral agents.  Benton[20] implies that that we have to take account of species-specific elements of moral patients, which in turn allows recognition that animals and humans can be differently treated without denying that animals do have rights (of a passive nature) which ought to be protected !

If the ‘rights’ argument did not stand up philosophically, (arguably a difficult position to uphold), then the real concern for animal suffering may take on religious connotations.  This may yet prove to be a desirable strategy to further the cause to alleviate the plight of suffering animals.  Buddhism, the Hindu faith and even Christianity has strong animal rights affiliations despite subsequent interpretations of the new testament there is evidence that Jesus was a vegetarian:  but so was Adolf Hitler!

“And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his tomb.  For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and whosoever eats the flesh of slain beasts eats the body of death.” – Jesus of Nazareth

 

Enlightened Response

If the concept of consideration for animal suffering is rejected, having considered the arguments and evidence in this essay, the question of ‘response’ probably doesn’t arise.  But if accepted, going by any ethical criterion, the response must surely be to respond with a commitment not to contribute to the perpetuation of that suffering.  Modern intensive farming methodology by its competitive nature, causes suffering to many farmed animals who are forced to live in extremely cramped and filthy conditions.  (I have deliberately spared the horror stories that abound from animal welfare campaigners, and others, which are usually sickening to anyone with the slightest compassion for the feelings of animals).  I would therefore argue that to continue with a carnivorous diet, having accepted the argument that animals can, and do, suffer and that they have a right to be spared from that suffering, would be an hypocrisy.  Which, as mentioned elsewhere, makes it difficult for anyone who enjoys the experience of meat on their palate to accept.

With accepted enlightenment of the issues then a proper response would be at least to consume food that satisfies your conscience to be truly ‘cruelty free.’[21]  To follow a vegan diet is obviously the safest way to avoid contribution to cruelty in farming.  Vegetarianism, often a step towards veganism, is a likely response to taking animals’ rights seriously, and many vegans would applaud that as a step n the right direction.  There are of course those, usually sceptical carnivores, whom are of the ‘all or nothing’ persuasion, and are critical of fish eating vegetarians, or vegetarians who wear leather clothing for example.  There are degrees or stages of vegetarianism, and there can be different paths to becoming a vegetarian or vegan.

There is now a good range of vegetarian options available in retail outlets, such as supermarkets, but problems arise when seeking vegan options, particularly when dining out at venues that are not specifically vegetarian or vegan.  Vegetarian cheese is fairly accessible, but vegan cheese[22] can usually be found only in specialist health food outlets.  Soya milk, another vegan product, is available from most supermarkets, as is Soya alternatives to sliced ham, beef, chicken and meat mince.

The implications of accepting, and reacting positively to ‘animals’ rights’ ethics arguments can be far reaching and somewhat testing, but not insurmountable.  The relatively short term economic cost and inconvenience to farming, the food retail industry and consumers may be justified when considering the, potentially catastrophic, global environmental damage and consequent economic and humanitarian costs.

---

[1] Marcus, Erik 1998: 153 - 183

[2] Bodhipaksa 1999: 50 - 52

[3] IBID: 51

[4] IBID: 50

[5] Peter Singer – How Are We To Live? 1995: 44  (Cited IBID)

[6] Tamminga, S 1992 – Farm animals & the Environment (gaseous pollutants produced by farm animals)

[7] Executive Director, Greenpeace UK

[8] Radio 4 – 3 August 2000

[9] Schoon, N 1997

[10] Anon a 1997

[11] Crace, J 1997

[12] Bovine Spongyform Encephalopathy

[13] Often cited as cause of food poisoning bacteria in eggs and poultry (is it egg first or….?)

[14] Beardsworth & Keil 1997: 197-201

[15] Often young self conscious  females.

[16] Nuttall, Jon 1993: 191-193

[17] Marginal Cases. – Singer has been dubbed a Nazi by disabled protesters who misunderstood this comparison to mean that the disabled should be exterminated or experimented on, rather than an argument to save animals from suffering. – The Times Higher Ed. PHILOSOPHY - 8 October 1999.

[18] Garner, Robert 1996: 2

[19] Judith Jarvis Thomson – A Defence of Abortion

[20] Benton, T 1993 - Natural Relations: ecology, animal rights & social justice

[21] Cruelty free – many retail outlets sell ‘cruelty free’ or ‘welfare friendly’ animal products, but there is evidence that farmed animals are kept in similar cramped conditions as those that do not carry the ‘cruelty free’ label.

[22] Made from Soya or other non animal ingredients.

.