"They're food animals." "Why else would they be here?" "What does a chicken do otherwise?"
These are common responses that animal rights advocates receive when attempting to have a conversation about annually killing billions of individuals for gastronomical reasons.
What's being implied here is the existence of a natural hierarchy. By "natural" I mean designed:
Any statement that suggests a reason for existence ("What does a cow exist for?") presupposes a divine intention - a thing or being was created for a purpose. Statements of this kind, then, assume a deity (god) that initiated and defined the outcome of the physical world - Creation.
How do you respond to someone who implicitly claims to have access to knowledge that they couldn't possibly have ("God created nonhumans as a means to an end. That end being man.")? By definition, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Therefore, it's inherently unreasonable. This is a particularly acute problem for those of us who believe that suffering is intrinsically evil therefore it ought to be limited to the greatest extent possible as a matter of ethics. Our argument has reason on its side, however, even the most reasonable arguments are often ignored by those who rely on non-reason to guide them in their moral decision-making.
It seems a reasonable start to inform the person justifying their consumption of body parts by appealing to design by telling them that that is what they are doing. Oftentimes this argument is motivated not so much by thought but mere impulse.
What could follow from this attempt to enlighten them of their assumption is the question: "Do those few genes that make us human animals really justify the breeding of entire species of nonhumans for the sole purpose of suffering a lifetime of harm and inevitably a painful death?" One could inquire further into the basis of their belief in god and if they, on this greatest-of-all-and-most-controversial-assumptions-possible, truly feel it's justified to starve a white fox so as to allow her skin to loosen from rapid weight loss, only to then remove the fur from her body while she's conscious.
These questions, however, rely on sentiment, perhaps empathy, to provide the impetus to alter their speciesist habits. The main appeal here is emotional: It's not about questioning the assumption but merely illuminating the grounds for their arguments and attempting to show how, even if such an assumption were sound, it may not be able to justify treating nonhumans like a pair of old shoes.
One could further argue that relying on statements such as "Nature just is this way" is selective reasoning:
Civilization is marked by progression in the form of removing ourselves from those natural conditions of pre-society. From communication, to transportation, to our relationships, to government, and morality human's shape, through a kind of violence, what might be described as the natural order - if order is even an appropriate term.
There is nothing natural about processes of food production. Indeed, we've mechanized production; turning a feeling being into bacon has become wholly unnatural by our design. We disrupt nature for our ends - we don't live in it, we change it, making it barely recognizable.
Therefore, appeals to "nature" are found wanting for even decent arguments in support of them.
Finally (fatally to the argument for design?), we can rely on Charles Darwin to resolve this conflict. "Design" is contrary to evolution; evolution is a testable and proven theory (you know, like gravity) meaning it's reality:
The species Homo sapien descended from animals; man is in fact a species of animal. We evolved through a process of natural selection: chance mutation. Chance! There is no underlying purpose to the result, no hierarchy by design. It's luck; it's arbitrary. To borrow from Rawls, we are the result of the "natural lottery."
Design is a fiction; a story told and re-told by man for man's ego. The assumption of a "natural order" is merely cover for our psychological and moral shortcomings: We desire to set ourselves apart from the rest of nature because we selfishly want everything for free. Free from any moral consideration, all those externalities, a rational estimation of the costs our actions have on future generations, that noble virtue kindness...We're gluttons, glorified sinners.
More can be said about Darwin's destruction of this baseless assumption, however, it's irrefutable therefore nothing else needs to be said. But therein rests our dilemma:
This refutation is based on reason and evidence, which as I stated before, may not move the person who relies on faith to justify their actions.
Enter David Hume I suppose: Show them the suffering; trigger that hardwired sense of empathy (again, evolution not design!) and compel them to demand the appropriate actions that accord with their sentiments.
We have options.
Plutarch said,
"But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun and light and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy."
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Leave a comment