Philosophical Perspective
Philosopher James Rachels acknowledges that meat eating is a common, accepted part of our daily lives; “people have always eaten meat; and many find it difficult even to conceive of what an alternate diet would be like” (“Vegetarianism” 467). Indeed, in addition to eating animals, we use their skins for clothing and their heads as wall ornaments; we make them objects of entertainment in rodeos and zoos; we use them as experimental subjects in laboratories; and we hunt and kill them for “sport” (Rachels and Rachels, “Moral Philosophy” 95). However, Rachels argues that the Kantian view that animals exist “merely as a means to an end” is outdated and unacceptable (qtd. in Rachels, “Vegetarianism” 648). He points out that thousands of animals are tormented for their entire lives simply to promote one of the most trivial interest we have (Rachels, “Vegetarianism” 469). Rachels insists, “animals that are tortured suffer, just as tortured humans suffer, and that is the primary reason why it is wrong” (“Vegetarianism” 468). Charles Darwin confirms, “there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties … The animals, like man, feel pleasure and pain, happiness and misery” (qtd. in IDA). Pulitzer Prize winner Alice Walker agrees, “the animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men” (qtd. in IDA). Jeremy Bentham suggests that “the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” (qtd. in Boss 271).
Rachels’ argument is simple: “Causing suffering is not justified unless there is a good reason … if the suffering is great, the justifying reason must be correspondingly powerful” (“Vegetarianism” 469). Rachels observes that “most people radically underestimate the amount of suffering that is caused to animals who are raised and slaughtered for food.” He submits that “our enjoyment of the way they taste is not a sufficient justification for mistreating them” (Rachels, “Vegetarianism” 469). Rachels explains that humans can nourish themselves very well without consuming meat and although one person’s conversion to vegetarianism won’t stop the suffering, he emphasizes the importance of viewing one’s behavior in a wider context (“Vegetarianism” 471-473). “There are already millions of vegetarians, and because they don’t eat meat there is less cruelty than there otherwise would be” Rachels adds. “The question is whether one ought to side with that group, or with the carnivores whose practices cause the suffering” (“Vegetarianism” 473). Rachels and Rachels contend that “the moral community must be expanded to include all creatures whose interests are affected by what we do. Human beings are in many was special; and an adequate morality must acknowledge that. But we are only one species among many inhabiting this planet; and morality must acknowledge that fact as well” (“Moral Philosophy” 99). Indeed, Scottish philosopher David Hume declares, “The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster” (qtd. in Boss 294).
Objections
Though most Americans find animal cruelty repugnant, according to Judith Boss, over 95 percent of Americans are meat-eaters (293). This is in part due to an overwhelming acceptance of the attitude expressed by Genesis, which states: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth’” (qtd. in Boss 178). Even some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, support similar views without the religious emphasis. Kant submits that we have no direct duties to animals because they lack the reasoning abilities of a human and are therefore not self-conscious (qtd. in Boss 320). However, Boss argues that “not only is human reason imperfect, reason is found throughout the animal kingdom to various degrees. [And] in addition, reason can also be programmed into artificial intelligence” (165-166). Thus, Kant’s justification for not including animals in the moral community is unfounded.
As for the religious view of human hierarchy, one might realize that “by destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. The destructive effects of the exclusion of nonhuman animals and the environment from our moral community have only recently begun to be [recognized]” (Boss 180-181). Considering that Christianity has also been employed in the subjugation of women, African Americans, and homosexuals, it seems unnecessary to elaborate further (Boss 179). Even theologian Albert Schweitzer contends that “until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace” (qtd. in IVU).
