The following is a defense of the continued exploitation of animals, most commonly proffered by members of the scientific and pseudo-scientific communities:
Every living organism exploits its resources for the basic goal of propagating the species. Human beings are one such organism; as animals are a "resource" to be exploited, as a species we have an evolutionary imperative - a programmed biological drive - to use our animal resources for this end.
This defense may at first be convincing, however, it's only sound if you don't think about it very hard.
Consider the logic employed: the end of an organism is the continuation of itself; "resources," then, are exploited accordingly. This begs the question: Why does this exploitation only occur across species barriers? Following the logic of this defense, if the end sought by the species Homo sapien is the continuation of itself, inner-species exploitation would appear to be not only logical, but necessary.
Consider the examples of the severely mentally retarded, or the enfeebled members of the elderly community. It would seem that instead of promoting the end of continued life, these individuals detract from this end: a) they provide nothing tangible by way of those human goods necessary to the propagation of life, b) while they necessarily continue to consume finite resources, including financial output, the usage of medicinal goods, time, and the effort of those medical professionals, for example, who could be using their efforts in those ways that promote the health of the contributing members of the species.
It's reasonable to argue that it's illogical, as measured by the defense under examination, to continue to use our resources to ensure the continuation of life of an irreversibly bed-ridden cancer patient, for example. If the end is the propagation of the species, it would be logical to use these members of our species as a resource: infants who are born severely mentally retarded, for example, ought to be used in medical experiments that would benefit the greater society; it's logical to turn this infant, who would do nothing but consume finite resources, into a resource to be efficaciously used to satisfy our species' biological imperative to ensure survival.
As a defense of eating meat, then, this logic must be followed to its ethical conclusion, which would include defending the vivisection of those individuals who are in a persistent vegetative state, for example. It would be illogical to do otherwise considering the potential for an enormous wealth of knowledge about the human body. Nazi scientists performed such experiments during the Holocaust with great success.
Most people are uncomfortable with this conclusion, however, and instead place a moral barrier that limits exactly how far our species, as an organism, ought to go to propagate itself. Individuals in the advanced stages of AIDS ought not be enslaved and experimented upon, even if these tests would add to our species' knowledge about the disease, because that is a moral line that shouldn't be crossed.
As it were, defending the exploitation of animals because it's in our nature to do so, is found wanting and deficient. Indeed, what it really is, is a veiled defense of Speceisism: human animals desire to exploit non-human animals for various ends, so we immorally refuse to allow all sentient beings entrance into the moral community. An argument that this blog has been and will continue to prove morally defective.
This defense also assumes that non- human animals are resources to be exploited like anything else, similar to oil, but they clearly aren't and any person who says otherwise is simply prejudiced. Over 95% of the animals we exploit are, like us, sentient. A pig thinks, he subjectively experiences his life, he interacts with the world around him, and he feels it all - oil doesn't feel or experience anything because it is incapable of feeling or experiencing or thinking. But as this assumption is self-evidently false, I won't go any further.
Great post!
I grew up in a pretty sexist environment and I was told over and over that rape was just biological--if a woman dressed in a revealing outfit, or flirted a lot, or even walked in "slutty" way, then a man just couldn't help himself, he wouldn't be able to control raping her.
So when people say it's just our biology to eat animals, I always think about that. How we claim to be powerless over "animal instincts" whenever it suits us, while at the same time doing many things that seem to defy instinct. Why contribute to charity if we are all just out for ourselves.
I argue that as animals that evolved to live in a communal setting, our empathy and compassion are as much a part of our biological drives as anything else. And as our population grows larger, and the world more complex, these particular aspects of our make-up become more important. It is only natural that we should extend our compassion and empathy to animals, and rather than suppressing that for the sake our own greed, we should celebrate that we can and do care about more than just ourselves.
Anyway, not too eloquent a comment, but I wanted you to know I'm reading and listening.
Jen and I appreciate your participation very much, Neva. Thanks for the compliment about the post and I think you make some important additional points.
Quote:
“I argue that as animals that evolved to live in a communal setting, our empathy and compassion are as much a part of our biological drives as anything else.”
That is an excellent insight, I think. Indeed, you appropriately cite charity; one could also look to our laws and find that the “least among us” (e.g., the elderly, mentally handicapped) are often in fact extended more protection than those among us who contribute to the most efficacious propagation of our species.
Our attitudes on sexual assault in past, and today, still reflect this inherent prejudice against the survivor. It’s an unsettling belief to most of us, but what a woman wears is often cited as the cause for the attack: men have a biological instinct to mate, which if prodded by a woman’s “sexy” attire, we ought to extend some forgiveness to him. However, this “instinct” is not accepted publicly; we put a moral (and legal) barrier to defend against how far instinct is allowed to go. We see “biological drive” as an excuse of an immoral individual, not properly moral action – and we punish the immoral action accordingly.
This is a flawed argument at best.
Thanks again!