“…The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?… The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes…”
-Jeremy Bentham
Most humans who hold a specific idea or opinion, that they have been putting into practice most of their lives, will not be too eager to hear nor accept any correction or criticism of that position. The topic of animal ethics, is, one of the most important topics of our century, if not, the most significant moral issue that humanity has ever had to tackle, only comparable to that of slavery, and, it also happens to be quite a sensitive subject. To begin with, we must first define what ‘morality’ and ‘ethics’ mean in the broadest of terms, and how the two relate to the treatment of animals, at the hands of human beings.
Morality simply put, is the contemplation of what good, bad, right and wrong, consist of, whilst, ethics is the application of moral principles to govern the actions and behaviors of an individual. Most humans, recognize non-human animals as sentient beings with the capacity to feel just as vividly as humans, if not more, due to some animals heightened senses. Humans, however, neglect this in our moral consideration of animals. A being that can be wronged, is illegible for moral consideration. Animals can clearly be wronged, as animals can suffer, which, no sentient creature would delight in experiencing, nor want any sort of pain inflicted on themselves. Animals are therefore deserving of moral consideration.
The notion animals are morally considerable beings, doesn’t necessarily mean we are to treat animals in the same fashion we treat each other. Instead, we are, to treat them as beings with interests, and if those interests do not negatively affect us in any manner, they should be allowed to freely pursue those interests. What interests could animals possibly have? At the bare minimum; non-human animals have an interest in avoiding suffering, an interest in the preservation of their lives, an interest in reproducing, an interest in having shelter, and in some cases: an interest in socializing and being part of a herd, an interest in caring for their offspring and so on. Any interests that negatively impact on a majority of another being’s interests are morally unacceptable interests.
In the milk industry, a mature cow is artificially inseminated each year (as this is far cheaper than to have a bull mate with her), and the offspring, upon birth, is forcefully removed from the care of the mother. The cow, is then machine milked during two or three times every day, the milk, which was intended for the calf, is then packaged and sold for the purposes of human consumption. If the calf, is lucky enough, to be born female, she will be raised on a dairy farm, until mature enough to have offspring, where the process of insemination will be repeated, however, if the calf is male, he will either be killed and discarded, as the meat from these calves is not considered viable for human consumption, and a few, selected arbitrarily, are taken and raised until mature enough to produce sperm to be used to fertilize cows. The milk producing cow, will continue to work, until it is either exhausted from the constant birthing and milking that it can no longer carry on at the rate it used to, or too injured to be made use of. The exhausted or damaged cow is then sent to a slaughterhouse, where its flesh will be prepared, packaged and sold for human consumption. This, is taking
place every day, and it is, one example of humans acting on morally unacceptable interests against non-human animals.
“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
-John Stuart Mill
There simply is no moral justification for the suffering inflicted on animals for the purposes of satiating human interests. What benefit or compensation is given to an animal that is killed for the purposes of producing clothing or food to please humans? A common argument for the killing and suffering inflicted onto animals is simply; humans possess a higher degree of intelligence compared to animals and are therefore justified in their treatment of non-human animals, if the possession of a specific trait allows for the treatment of other creatures as inferior beings then surely we would be justified in our ill treatment of the weakest of humans among us?
As the Australian philosopher Peter Singer distinctly put it:
“If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?”
Another common argument, specifically one regarding the killing of animals for purposes of consumption is that, meat contains protein, protein that is a necessity in the nutrition of humans, is only found in meat. This is not true, some of the same type of proteins found in animal flesh, can be found in a variety of fruits and vegetables, given that, you consume the plants in the right amounts. The consumption of animal flesh, is simply, a matter of choice, and many continue to do so, simply because animal flesh tastes better.
The suffering done unto animals by humans, is morally abhorrent, and has no justification whatsoever.