Please (don't) Eat Tasty Animals
I really loathe PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) these days. I loved Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation," which, when it was published in the 70's, gave a philosophical groundwork for the entire animal rights movement. The ethics of animal welfare and utilitarianism are compelling and quite a lot more relatable than most people know. I think there is a very powerful case to be made on utilitarian grounds that animals ought to deserve sincere, detached, rational moral consideration and treatment, particularly the most developed and intelligent mammals. PETA is screwing all of this up, by, for example, saying that Obama should not have swatted a fly during a news interview.
http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2009/06/peta-wishes-obama-hadnt-swatted-fly
People who simply like their steak are now given the impression that the only folks out there who really care about animal rights are a bunch of nutcases. PETA is simply not a representative of the case there is to be made.
Before Singer's movement arose, the consensus was (for the most part) that moral communities could only consist of members who could either participate in said communities through their own moral actions, or at least be able to understand the rational nature of moral justification. Utilitarianism has been around for hundreds of years, but it didn't consider animals as pain and pleasure-feeling beings on account of behavioural reasons. It was thought (in the Christian tradition) that humans were imbued with a special faculty that transcended the movements and reactions of their brains and bodies. Call it the soul, or self-awareness, or consciousness, or what you like. Animals, until the behavioural sciences were overthrown, were thought to be creatures that merely imitated, or gave the impression of, pain and pleasure. Immanuel Kant, for example, believed that animals ought to be treated humanely only for reasons related to the emotional health of their human owners, and not for their own sakes.
So Singer (and others) came on to the scene and argued compellingly that the capacity to feel is not limited to humans. (It seems like an obvious case these days, but it was developed over decades.) And neither, they argued, was the capacity to have relationships and social heirarchies and cultures unique to humans. Therefore, it was concluded, we need to give animals moral consideration even though they can't do the same in return, and even if they are unable to understand the gesture.
The considerations are complicated. Some people extend this line of thought to the subjugation of animals, arguing that the idea of ownership of animals is itself immoral. Others do not. Some believe that using animals for food is always immoral (when it's not necessary for survival anyway), while others believe it is ok to the degree that the animals are treated in a humane manner. The question of what animals warrant ethical treatment is largely empirical, since ethical treatment is offered on the basis of a creatures capacity to benefit from it meaningfully. There are countless other questions and details and disagreements within the circle of Utilitarianism and animal rights, and I urge anyone to read Singer's book, especially it's latest edition.
And don't listen to PETA. Their case is predicated on emotional pleas, scare tactics, horrifying imagery, and sexy celebrities. They are to philosophy what Fox News is to journalism, or what the WWE is to sport.
http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2009/06/peta-wishes-obama-hadnt-swatted-fly
People who simply like their steak are now given the impression that the only folks out there who really care about animal rights are a bunch of nutcases. PETA is simply not a representative of the case there is to be made.
Before Singer's movement arose, the consensus was (for the most part) that moral communities could only consist of members who could either participate in said communities through their own moral actions, or at least be able to understand the rational nature of moral justification. Utilitarianism has been around for hundreds of years, but it didn't consider animals as pain and pleasure-feeling beings on account of behavioural reasons. It was thought (in the Christian tradition) that humans were imbued with a special faculty that transcended the movements and reactions of their brains and bodies. Call it the soul, or self-awareness, or consciousness, or what you like. Animals, until the behavioural sciences were overthrown, were thought to be creatures that merely imitated, or gave the impression of, pain and pleasure. Immanuel Kant, for example, believed that animals ought to be treated humanely only for reasons related to the emotional health of their human owners, and not for their own sakes.
So Singer (and others) came on to the scene and argued compellingly that the capacity to feel is not limited to humans. (It seems like an obvious case these days, but it was developed over decades.) And neither, they argued, was the capacity to have relationships and social heirarchies and cultures unique to humans. Therefore, it was concluded, we need to give animals moral consideration even though they can't do the same in return, and even if they are unable to understand the gesture.
The considerations are complicated. Some people extend this line of thought to the subjugation of animals, arguing that the idea of ownership of animals is itself immoral. Others do not. Some believe that using animals for food is always immoral (when it's not necessary for survival anyway), while others believe it is ok to the degree that the animals are treated in a humane manner. The question of what animals warrant ethical treatment is largely empirical, since ethical treatment is offered on the basis of a creatures capacity to benefit from it meaningfully. There are countless other questions and details and disagreements within the circle of Utilitarianism and animal rights, and I urge anyone to read Singer's book, especially it's latest edition.
And don't listen to PETA. Their case is predicated on emotional pleas, scare tactics, horrifying imagery, and sexy celebrities. They are to philosophy what Fox News is to journalism, or what the WWE is to sport.
Comments