In the 1970’s I studied Ethics at the University of Southern California and here’s what I remember:
Egotism/egoism: I’m the only person in the world who matters, I and everyone else should do whatever is best for me as determined by what I like.
Altruism: Everyone else’s welfare except mine is important, and I should live my life in a way that benefits others to the max at whatever cost to myself, since I don’t matter.
Utilitarianism (what everyone sort of believes): Everyone matters equally, even me. I’m in the best position to look out for myself because I know what I like, but the ultimate moral measure is the net effect to everyone. Insert harm principle, informed consent, free trade, etc etc.
We called units of utilitarian pleasure/good “utiles” and bad effects were measured in “negative utiles” (I think we were joking, but maybe that was serious). But then the question comes up of if we’re only talking about other humans in the utilitarian calculus, and if so why, and what about plants and animals? I wrote a very thoughtful essay for my Ethics class called “Plants and Animals” which I thought handled this question in a brilliant way and I wound up getting a bad grade on the essay which still bothers me. (And no it wasn’t because of run-on sentences or sentence fragmants or other grammar gaffes which I do on purpose in the blog context together with some subtle alliterations to give my prose some personality and punch.)
Now maybe plant and animal welfare matters in the utilitarian calculus because there are humans who care about the plants and animals, but that sort of utility or disutility can kind of drive you crazy and you need some sort of anti-busybody rule that will discount the malaise experienced by busybodies over things that are none of their business. Unless you own the animal in question, nobody cares what you think.
Which brings us to Prop 2, the initiative that would require certain livestock to have minimal rights to move about and stretch prior to being murdered for food.
The basic facts seem undisputed as between the pros and cons. Current practice in animal husbandry in the State of California is such that egg-laying hens, certain porkers, and calves meant for veal are confined to cages about the size of their own bodies and never get a refreshing walkabout and stretch. The farmers see an economic benefit to such a practice so that some incremental cost or inconvenience and some disadvantage vis a vis neighboring states and countries is beyond dispute, but the PETA types are losing sleep over the horror of this confinement experienced by the livestock as they spend their last days on death row (OK, the chickens are not on death row, but you get the idea).
Note that I am using the word “farmers” to refer to the heartless animal husbanders. This betrays my bias and tips you that this will be a pitch for a “No” vote on Prop 2. If I were a swine-hugger I would use the word “agribusiness” which is a word that combines the Latin word for “field” with the Anglo-Saxon word for “activity” and is used as part of the pinko-socialist consipiracy to find a vile-sounding word for any form of economic activity that is not run entirely by the government. In a blog you might risk redundancy and say “big, greedy, corporate agribusiness.”
So anyway even if I were to give some utile points to the pain or pleasure experienced by animals and plants it would be a discounted number whenever any human utility is implicated, and here you have to keep in perspective that even if these doomed food-providers could stretch out a wing or a hoof once in a while, their overall quality of life is still pretty crappy.
You have my permission to be loyal to our species and vote “No” on Prop 2.
“Which brings us to Prop 2, the initiative that would require certain livestock to have minimal rights to move about and stretch prior to being murdered for food.”
“murdered” ???
Excuse me I just choked a little on my In & Out double-double. I am going to “murder” this burger, … mmm – so tasty.
What is the famous slogan about sausage again? Like you never want to see how it is made…..for example.
Reality bites…..electric cattle prods, confined growth, hormone injections, over feeding and brutal deaths…..all add up to one thing: Do not eat any living animal ever in your life. When my pet bunny was killed by the Ranch House cook for Sunday dinner….it was rather tramatic!
Some things we just have to accept in life. If not….do not touch meat of any kind.
However, it has come to the attention of many scientists that vegetables, fruit and plants in general; all feel pain and bruality in the harvesting process. That leaves us with insects…which means to a purest that eating cockroaches or locust when they attack…may be the only alternative.
In the meantime, while John Stuart Mill rolls over in his grave…..we will eat bacon and eggs,
German Bratwurst….and ingest a variety of liquids which may be created by doing great harm to certain designated plants.
OJ category “Animal Rights” – since when do animals have rights? Are those rights guaranteed in the Constitution? Don’t think so.
People have rights – humans, homo sapiens – not animals.
However, people do not have the right to mistreat animals. Are “cooped-up” animals mistreated? – probably in many cases. And that should not happen. We should be good stewards of the animals we depend upon for sustenance.
But animal “rights” – no way !!
junior –
I’m going to ignore that comment because I know you’re more compassionate than that.
I’ve already stated that I find the animal rights people to be… well, outright crazy. Meat is meat, not murder, but then again, do you have pets? I know I do. If someone kills your dog you have a right to sue or file criminal charges. Do all animals have no rights? We need to distinguish between pets and livestock.
Don’t even get me STARTED on the spiritual, emotional, and social implications of animal abuse.
SMS
What is the famous slogan about sausage again? Like you never want to see how it is made…..for example.
The famous saying about the horrors of sausage is that it’s as bad as LEGISLATION.
I’m for animal exercise for a totally utilitarian reason, but I’m not for prop 2 if it requires animal exercise.
A better muscled, leaner animal will have a higher quality meat than a sedentary one, and whenever I could afford exercised livestock meat products, I would buy them.
So it’s a win-win, if you can say that the animal has a higher quality life through exercise before it is slaughtered.
But I don’t support mandating exercise, because if a livestock company wants to try for a price/quality point that is lower quality-lower price, they should be able to go for it. Mandating exercise will drive the price up for all animals that are affected by the regulation.
The sabre-cats never let our ancestors run around for a while before catching us for the evening feast, so now that we’re on top of the food chain, we (individually) should get to make the choice of what food we hunt and gather and how we prepare it.
Sarah,
My comment number 1 (compassion for the In & Out burger cow)? The only compassion would be to raise and slaughter the animal in a humane manner. I use humane here in this sense: “marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering” – certainly without cruelty.
“If someone kills your dog you have a right to sue or file criminal charges.” Yes, I agree with you. I have the right, not the animal.
I believe that in all cases, including pets, animals do not have rights. However, humans do not have the right to treat animals cruelly.
People have dominion over animals – but that does not give me the right to kick your dog for no reason. If your dog was going to bite my booty, you can bet that I would kick him into the next room.
Rights are not and should not be conferred upon animals. However, people should be held reasonably accountable for cruelty to animals.
“‘If someone kills your dog you have a right to sue or file criminal charges.’ Yes, I agree with you. I have the right, not the animal.”
We call that a setup. 😛 I knew you would say that, and the obvious response is that animal protection laws are intended to protect animals, not their owners from the loss of an animal. And you bet pets should have a few straight-out rights. Just because their guardians would have to invoke them does not disqualify the pets from having them.
As far as the livestock issue, I’m much more concerned about each industry’s disrespect for and disposal of parts of animals that it cannot itself immediately utilize. In order to truly respect an animal spirit, one must utilize all parts of livestock to honor its sacrifice. But then, I’m Shamanistic.
Otherwise, I agree with Joey’s assessment. We can’t legally mandate a method of slaughter unless it is inherently inhumane.
SMS
“… animal protection laws are intended to protect animals, not their owners from the loss of an animal.”
Of course animal protection laws are intended to protect animals – as well as protecting their owners from loss. But, that does not confer an inherent or granted right to the animal.
If you want to say that animals have rights, fine no problem. But you will not find any laws which define rights as belonging to an animal – and that is as it should be.
‘If you want to say that animals have rights, fine no problem. But you will not find any laws which define rights as belonging to an animal – and that is as it should be.‘
I’m not going to argue the former point, but to say that animals shouldn’t have rights is just plain cruel, I’m sorry.
SMS
Sarah,
OK – for the sake of arguement, say animals have rights. Does that included the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Just where do those “rights” stop?
junior –
Clearly that’s something we as a society would have to discuss. I’ve already conceded that animal rights would not be like human rights, but in this case, by giving animals rights, people don’t lose any, so I think it’s worth talking about.
SMS
Sarah,
Here is something on which I think we can both wholeheartedly agree.
The Winships say: “Do not eat any living animal ever in your life.”
I hereby commit to never eating any animal which is living – promise.
junior
What, no more monkey brains, Junior?
Vern,
Actually, monkey brains would be permissible under my commitment to not eat live animals. Since in order to eat monkey brains the monkey would have been dead.
You do understand that I have committed to not eat live animals. This does not apply to animals which may have been alive at one time and are now deceased.
I see it is now lunch time. I think that I will go to Taqueria de Anda and get tacos de cabeza. Love those brains.
I’m thanking God right now that Sarah isnt on any policy making body that I’m on. She would wear me out! Reading this banter almost made me forget what the topic was.
My view is that there are few “farmers” anymore, very few “old MacDonald’s farms” and little species rights from birth to grave for most plants and animals and certainly nothing that could possibly be considered normal or natural for a consumable animal or plant without human intervention.
The food supply has become riskier with the transition to modern agribusness too. Pickers die in the fields of California (several this year), consumers die from e-coli because the agribusness needs to tighten the money spent on harvest so port-a-potties and potable cool drinking water are in short supply in the fields. Additionally, these agribusinesses are a huge employer of and attractor to illegal immigrants and the industry previously embraced the brutal and discriminatory bracero programs now illegal.
No animals do not have inherent rights, except perhaps the right not to be brutalized but isn’t that more of an obligation we impose on humanity? Don’t we require in a civilized society that we conduct ourselves in a non-brutal way with almost everything in our world?
I agree “no on Prop 2” but I also think that we need to become more suspicious of our agribusiness suppliers and not be afraid to listen to science and not eat cows six or fourteen times a week.
Whatever you do don’t watch videos of how the animals are treated living or dead. I did and boycotted all meat for a year and even now I cook beef and chicken really well. We might want a more nutritous and safer food source in the future (Soylent Green anyone?).
Oh yeah, our entire agribusness economy is heavily dependent on oil too, so the price of a barrell of oil is going to come home big time in increased food prices. The time will come when you have to shell out ten bucks for your in and out and then you might choose a salad at home instead.
‘I’m thanking God right now that Sarah isnt on any policy making body that I’m on. She would wear me out! Reading this banter almost made me forget what the topic was.‘
Hey! That’s not fair! I’d be an expert in the art of filibuster by your logic. 🙂
SMS
Sarah, I’m convinced that your mastery in the art of filibuster is only limited by your lack of time in an environment that allows it. As such I intended my comment to be fair so I appologize if it was not. I do stand by my intuition in predicting that you “would wear me out” I will add for your amusement – “in every way.” 😉
Junior, this is what I mean by monkey brains, they are traditionally eaten while the monkey IS ALIVE:
http://maxent.org/ch/monkey_brains.html
Vern – Thanks for the information. I am not brave enough to open that link.
Anonyms – I appreciate your posted comment. You make a lot of sense concerning this issue.
junior