veganism beyond diet (3)

Veganism beyond DietBasic philosophical themes in animal ethics

Patrizia Setola

Ethics

• Ethics or moral philosophy = branch of philosophy concerned with issues of rightness and justice, or fairness It involves the development of systematic approaches to determine

‘right’ or ‘wrong’ behaviour (Rawls, 2000)

• Together with religion and science, it has had a major influence on the development of attitudes towards animals

Ethical Veganism•Veganism is part of an ethical stance which rejects the view of sentient beings as commodity

•Ethical vegans do not only follow a vegan diet, rather they oppose the use of animals or animal products for any purpose

•The term vegan was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 when he co-founded the British Vegan Society

“The doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.’’ (1951)

Aristotle(384–322 BC)

•Animals have sense perception but lack reason

•Animals thus exist for the use of humans (the only rational animals)

oNB also, on the basis of reason

men are superior to womensome humans are suited to be slaves

Judaico-Christian tradition

• For the Bible, God created humans in his own image and free to use natural resources – including animals – for their own purposes

• Christian philosophers since the Middle Ages (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas) have claimed that animals lack reason and are therefore subordinate

• Judaism has placed greater importance in minimizing pain caused to animals

René Descartes (16th century French philosopher):

1. Language is the only evidence of mind (thought, reason, and feeling)

2. Only humans possess language

Conclusion: animals lack reason & feeling

René Descartes

animals are just machines,

therefore

they don’t deserve moral concern

Immanuel Kant

‘Animals are ... merely as means to an end. That end is man’

(Lectures in Ethics, 1780)

Rationality in Animals?Betty, The New Caledonian Crow

Alternative views

Pythagoras

• Pythagoras's school (sixth century BC, Magna Grecia) advocated a refusal to eat meat or to offer blood sacrifice

• Pythagoras believed that - the human soul could transmigrate to

humans or other animals after death- the ultimate goal was to free the soul

from earthly existence and reunite with its divine origins

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

‘The question is not, can they think

nor can they talkbut can they suffer’

(1780)

David Hume (1711-1776)

‘Animals undoubtedly feel’ (1742)

• Sympathy is the source of moral thought

• It can be extended to sensitive creatures

• But justice only concerns humans (equal in power)

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

• Rejects reason, autonomy, self-consciousness, and power as requirements for moral concern

• Moral living requires compassion for all beings who can suffer

• But humans deserve higher moral concern in virtue of their intelligence (thus increased capacity for suffering)

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

• Humans evolved from other animal species by natural selection

• Animals’ and humans’ capacities differ in degree not in kind

Charles Darwin

‘The expression of the emotions in man and animals’ (1782)

Eastern philosophies: Ahimsa

• The Indian traditions of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism accept the doctrine of ahimsa Non harm to all living things

Reverence to all life

Native Americans

•Nature is animated by spirit

•Spiritual view of animal life, which is owed respect

•It’s however allowed to kill and consume animals

Contemporary views on animals

The predominant scientific theory in the 1st part of the 20th century

−‘Inner states’ of animals (and humans) cannot be studied

Behaviourism

Black box

Input(Stimulus)

Output(Response)

Cognitive Ethology

•In 1976 Donald Griffin publishes ‘The Question of Animal Awareness’

Animal behaviour can be studied in the context of evolutionary theory

‘Inner states’ (beliefs, desires, feelings, etc.) used to explain behaviour

Peter Singer‘Animal Liberation’ (1975)

The start of rigorous philosophical literature on the moral status of animals

Peter Singer

• Exposed shocking cruelty to animals used in modern farms and laboratories

• Philosophical framework inspired by Benthamo Utilitarian – goal: to maximize overall welfare

o Pleasure and pain (sentience) as requirements of moral consideration

o Only sentient beings can have interests

o Principle of equal consideration – when deciding on our actions, we should consider equally the interests of all beings (human and non human alike) who are involved

Different from equal treatment

Speciesism (Richard Ryder)

• Racism = privileging the interests of one ethnic group

• Sexism = privileging the interests of one gender

• Speciesism = privileging the interests of one species

Peter Singer, Welfarism, and Vegetarianism

• Singer does not rule out the use of animals

− It is possible to use animals for human purposes as long as:

a. Their interests have been considered equally

b. Their use maximizes overall utility

• The focus is on their treatment (welfare)

• He describes himself as a ‘flexible vegan’

• His argument for vegetarianism is on utilitarian grounds, namely

− in raising animals for our food, we cause them more suffering than we gain by eating their flesh

Tom Regan – Animal Rights

‘The Case for Animal Rights’ (1983)

•To achieve justice for animals we need to recognise their rights•The most basic right is to respectful treatment

One must never be used merely as a means to secure the best overall consequences

•Thus, some uses of animals are ruled out categorically

Singer versus Regan

Singer• Moral status is rooted in sentience

• Human use of animals permitted if their interests are considered equally and aggregate welfare increases as a result

• Vegetarianism (equal consideration of interests)

• In a life-boat situation humans take the precedence

Regan• Moral status is rooted in being

the subject-of-a-life

• Any form of exploitation that treats animals as mere tools is condemned

• Veganism

• In a life-boat situation humans take the precedence

Gary L. Francione

‘We must be clear that veganism is the unequivocal baseline of anything that deserves to be called an “animal rights” movement. If “animal rights” means anything, it means that we cannot morally justify any animal exploitation; we cannot justify treating animals as human resources, however “humane” that treatment may be.’ (from Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, blog post, 2012)

Joan Dunayer•Equal right to moral consideration and legal protection to all animals (all sentient beings)

•Strong opposition to ‘bans’ within the status quo (welfare regulations)

•Language perpetuates speciesism (the ‘oppressor’s language’)

Mark Rowlands• John Rawls, ‘Theory of Justice’ (1971) – social

contract as the basis for a just society

• In the ‘original position’ the contracting parties are under a ‘veil of ignorance’ This ensures that they choose impartially fair and just

principles

• But animals are left out from the contract, since:

I. They do not contribute to society

II. They are not ‘moral persons’

Mark with Brenin

Mark Rowlands

• Under the ‘veil of ignorance’ one does not know which species they belong to either It makes sense to extend

justice to animals

Ethic of Care‘The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics’ (2006)

Contributions by Carol Adams, Josephine Donovan,

Marti Kheel, Lori Gruen, et al.

• The oppression of animals and women is interrelated (and so is their liberation)

• Reason has been overvalued in traditional Western philosophy, to the detriment of our feelings of care for others

• Justice – determined by our care for others - should be extended to those we care for (animals)

Ethic of Care

‘The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics’ (2006)

- Contributions by Carol Adams, Josephine Donovan, Marti Kheel, Lori Gruen, et al.

• Emotion and feeling valued over reason

• Importance of Relationships and partiality

Context over abstraction

Carol Adams•Consumption of meat has become central to the organization and economy of human societies

•Access to meat has been traditionally controlled by men (hunters)

•Men’s control over meat supply ensured high power and elevated status over women

•The link between meat-eating and male superiority survives in modern societies

Meat eating identified with virility, strength, power, and maleness

Cora Diamond

• ‘Eating Animals and Eating People’ (1978)

- Singer’s and Regan’s arguments for vegetarianism are wrong:- The reasons why we do not eat our dead have nothing to do

with interests which warrant protection

- a human being is not something to eat, and this is a fundamental feature of what it means to be human

- We attribute significance in virtue of our relationships with others (human or non)

- The animal as ‘fellow creature’ – we share the same vulnerability in life and death

WorkshopQuestions

Humane treatment

• Wouldn’t it be ok to eat animals who have had a good life and have been painlessly killed?

• And what about using animal products which do not involve killing the animal, such as dairy and eggs (as long as the animals are treated humanely)?

Eating animals

• Wouldn’t it be ok to eat animals who have died of a natural death? Or by accident (e.g. road-kill)? Why?

Extinction of domestic animals

• In her book “When Species Meet,” Donna Haraway describes the vegan logic of avoidance as subtly supporting extermination. If vegans denounce all possible “uses” of animals, should the animals simply not exist? if there were no uses of animal products, would cows, sheep, chickens go extinct?

Are all animals equal?

• Should we protect mosquitoes, leeches, and other parasites? Where do you draw the line? What criteria do you apply for this purpose?

Language

Can you think of ways in which everyday language belittles and trivializes animals and animal-related issues?

Campaigns

• What do you think of single issue campaigns?

Plants’ rights

• How would you answer to those who ask, ‘But what about plants, shouldn’t we give them rights too?

Persuasion

• Are some methods of persuading other people to adopt a vegan ethos more effective than others?

• If so, can you identify them?

• Why do you think they are more effective?