The day may come when the rest of the animal
creation may acquire those rights which never could have been [withheld] from
them but by the hand of tyranny. The
French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a
human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the
number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the
[pelvic bone] are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being
to the same fate. A Full-grown horse or
dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal,
than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case
were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’
nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but, ‘Can they suffer?’
- Jeremy Bentham on Animal Rights - Introduction
to the Principles of Moral and Legislation (1789)
Normally, the discourse on Meat eating is
surrounded by those who claim that killing a life (ie animal) is wrong and the opponent camp claims that plants are also forms of
life. The vaccous argument above does not do justice
to case against meat eating
To
understand why meat eating is unethical, one would need to appreciate a few
concepts to start with
Conceptual Morality:
Man is a moral animal capable of ‘conceptual morality’. Conceptual morality is an idea which states that a man can be held morally responsible for his action because unlike an animal, he has the ability to perceive exactly how his action are felt by the recipient. For example if a cow with its horns nudges a man, the cow can never feel the pain the man felt after being nudged. But if a man kicks another man, he knows how much pain the recipient feels and in the exact degree. He has the ability to mentally transcend his body and place himself in the capacity of recipient of pain both consciously and sometimes unconsciously too. Imagine for example you are walking on the road and some one gets hit hard by a moving truck. You unconsciously react to it and feel the pain the man has felt albeit in smaller degree.
Man is a moral animal capable of ‘conceptual morality’. Conceptual morality is an idea which states that a man can be held morally responsible for his action because unlike an animal, he has the ability to perceive exactly how his action are felt by the recipient. For example if a cow with its horns nudges a man, the cow can never feel the pain the man felt after being nudged. But if a man kicks another man, he knows how much pain the recipient feels and in the exact degree. He has the ability to mentally transcend his body and place himself in the capacity of recipient of pain both consciously and sometimes unconsciously too. Imagine for example you are walking on the road and some one gets hit hard by a moving truck. You unconsciously react to it and feel the pain the man has felt albeit in smaller degree.
Psychologist
Sigmund Freud describes this phenomenon in his book on subconscious mind as
“the unconscious of one man moves to unconscious of another without moving
through the conscious process”. This
conceptual morality is the foundational basis for man’s morality and his claim
for moral superiority over other if there be one. This is the basis of empathy that lies in the
core of humanity ie the ability to feel pain and empathise with it.
If man lays claim to empathy as
an intrinsic element of humanity then that part of humanity must cover all
sentient beings and not merely human beings alone.
Can Animals feel Pain?
In the early
days men made many convenient and self-serving assumptions. One of them was that Animals cannot feel
pain. However leading researches and
cutting edge research and technology of today belies all such false and
self-serving assumptions. It blows away
the moral façade of the argument that animals cannot feel pain therefore can be
eaten like apples and oranges. Not only
can animals feel pain but many animals have a very well developed Nervous
system and they can feel pain in exactly the same manner as that of another
human being.
In
science they use some criteria to judge whether an Animal can feel pain or not.
Some
criteria that may indicate the potential of another species to feel pain include
- Has a suitable nervous system and sensory receptors
- Physiological changes to noxious stimuli
- Displays protective motor reactions that might include reduced use of an affected area such as limping, rubbing, holding or autonomy
- Has opioid receptors and shows reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics
- Shows trade-offs between stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements
- Shows avoidance learning
- High cognitive ability and sentience
The Argument
To consciously inflict pain on an animal with a very well-developed nervous system which can feel pain in exactly the same manner as any other human being can feel is morally and ethically indefensible
Try a Practical Experiment
Consider
another example.
Step 1 :
Take a plate of Mutton/ Chicken in your hand
Step 2 : Google and search for Animal slaughter videos
Step 3: Watch the Goat Slaughter Video and try eating mutton/ chicken
Are you able to enjoy the food? Or does that make you utterly uncomfortable? In case you are able to eat comfortably while watching the blood and gore of a sentient being being slaughtered ruthlessly and writhing in pain then you must continue doing so.
Step 2 : Google and search for Animal slaughter videos
Step 3: Watch the Goat Slaughter Video and try eating mutton/ chicken
Are you able to enjoy the food? Or does that make you utterly uncomfortable? In case you are able to eat comfortably while watching the blood and gore of a sentient being being slaughtered ruthlessly and writhing in pain then you must continue doing so.
However,
if you have difficulty in finishing the plate of mutton and eating it makes you
utterly uncomfortable then it is fair to contemplate further. Consider that there is no difference whether
a goat or a cow is slaughtered before your eyes or in some slaughter house and
your mutton comes in well packed cover removing all the traces of blood and
gore associated with killing the animal.
Those who think that the slaughter is morally despicable but still love
mutton or chicken on their plate need introspection as it reeks of convenient
blindness which comes close to hypocrisy.
5 comments:
This argument of "we shouldn't let them suffer", can be extended to plants also. I am not entirely sure whether plants feel pain, but some studies show there is a chance( e.g.,I think http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/video/titles/12151/do-plants-respond-to-pain ). If that is the case, by extending this argument to plants too, we won't be able eat anything. But we need to eat something to survive.
The video watching argument is compelling. But, even assuming that plants do not feel pain, a video-like argument can be made against killing plants too. Say you have a plant in your street which you adore for many years, which you nurture and watch grow. One day you find out that someone cut it, roasted it and ate it. You may be heart-broken on hearing this. But, when you get a nicely decorated veg burger you won't think of any of this and just eat it.
Just had a doubt also whether egg eating is OK as per the "suffering" argument. Here, even if the egg may not feel pain, the parent bird will be sad.
Firstly, thanks for commenting
Let me take your arguments one by one
1. Firstly to me it is not pain rather the quality of pain that matters. It is very true that plants experience stress when they are destroyed or when their branches are cut. But that stress (lets call it pain) is fundamentally different from pain experienced by an animal with well developed nervous system. Plants do not have nervous system as far as i know and quality of pain/ stress they experience can never be equated to that experienced by a sentient animal with well developed nervous system like a cow or a goat or a sheep
2. The second argument of plant video impinges on the earlier one so there is no need to rebutt it
3. Eating egg should be perfectly morally acceptable to me because egg as far as i know does not have a nervous system. The hen experiences an emotional disconnect which is not morally strong enough an argument to me to stop eating eggs.
The test to me is "pain similar to that of a human with well developed nervous system" therefore eating animals with lower nociceptors like invertebrates should be perfectly alright.
Hope you now got the drift of the original argument. It is not a case against meat eating perse but rather against eating meat of that animal which feels pain close to human being.
Thanks Imran, for the reply,
First I'll briefly summarize my understanding of the points you made in your last comment.
1) While you agree that plants also could feel stress, you believe that plant pain is qualitatively different from animal pain and cannot be equated.
2) depends on point 1
3) Eating egg is morally acceptable as there is no physical pain involved for the egg. Test is "pain similar to that of a human with well developed nervous system". Emotional disconnect a hen experiences(on losing its egg) is not strong enough.
My replies:
1) It could be the case that animal and plant pain are qualitatively different. If so, it does not make sense to equate them. But, it may not make sense to compare them too. One cannot easily say animal pain is "greater" or "more important" than plant pain. Hence, though I agree on the distinction, I am not sure if there is a strong case for preference of inflicting plant pain over animal pain. One could say "animal pain" is closer to "human pain" and we can empathize more with it. But, so what? It we cannot empathize much with plant pain( which is probably due to our biological makeup ), doesn't mean we can make a case for choosing to inflict plant pain over animal pain claiming ignorance. Essentially, this is an issue with the "similar to that of a human" clause in your "pain similar to that of a human with well developed nervous system". How is "pain similar to human" more important than "pain not very similar to human" ?
2) Here, the point I wanted to make was not closely related to point 1. Your video test depends a lot on our instinctive reaction to the killings. I was pointing out that this, let us say, emotional reaction, can be built up for plant killings too(but tougher).
3) If eating eggs is OK, then I agree that the argument looks internally consistent to me. But in case of the hen, you are fine to compromise on the emotional issue of hen. Here also, I am not sure if there is a strong case to choose one as relatively better from: "the pain a parent feels when a child, potential child in this case, is murdered " and the "pain an animal feels when it is slaughtered".
4) By extending the reasoning about the hen, will meat eating be fine for you if there is a law enforced that "animals should be painlessly tranquilized before slaughtering" ?
Allow me to highlight two aspects here which can perhaps help to appreciate the discussion better:
1. Firstly there is no escape from violence that is demanded by life in so far as survival of one animal species always depends on the elimination/ killing of another animal/ plant specie. It is impossible for any animal specie on earth to survive without killing another species be it a plant or an animal. Killing by extension comes with pain where an animal is killed or stress/pain where a plant is killed. So the question is essentially about rationing or choice. It is essentially a question of choice between the two. Is it possible to reduce this pain? Answer is yes then which specie do we choose? Should we eat plant and be complicit in inflicting pain on animals or should we eat animals and be complicit in inflicting pain/ stress on plants? It appears that choosing one over another is purely arbitrary without rhyme or reason
2. I can argue for animals and say that many animals experience pain similar to that of human beings and killing them is immoral because I can feel exactly how the animal can feel the pain. I can vicariously experience its sufferings and therefore how can I inflict pain on a being whose suffering I fully understand vis a vis over another being whose suffering I don’t fully empathise or understand.
You can answer back saying that the fact that we cannot suffer its pain makes it even more a moral reason to not inflict it. What if that quality of pain/stress of plant is far higher in discomfort and ugliness than the pain experienced by an animal that experiences human like Pain. After all some amount of pain can also be tolerated by human beings easily.
To my mind the way to resolve the conflict is to shift camera from plant and animal to ourselves. To think of it there are two pains in case of animal slaughter compared to one pain in case of plant slaughter. Ie additional pain we experience.
This is where the video example comes in. Unless a person is a professional butcher, it is difficult to believe that person can watch a fresh slaughter a cow or a sheep or goat without any compunction
The fact that we can empathise directly with the pain of animals with well-developed nervous system, and can hear its cries, shrieks of pain and feel exactly how it feels makes it slightly higher pedestal on a moral sphere in pain alleviation not because it experiences higher or lesser pain but because we experience lesser pain in doing so as human beings given our biological make up
Moral rationing is always a good way to clear out moral questions where is choice is involved.
Suppose you need to save one of the two from a railway track 1) a two month old baby 2) adult dog
you can choose only one of them, choosing one would automatically kill another. Would you choose a dog or a small human kid? Most people would say a baby. But why? Now I can ask you why is specie membership so important? A trained dog is more intelligent that a new born baby in many cases or even a few months old baby. It is much more a conversable animal with empathy and emotions. Is intelligence really the test to save the baby/ kid in that case? Or is specie membership so important? The dog too would experience pain in exactly the same way as the baby would. Therefore the answer has to be from our perspective and not from perspective of kid or dog alone. The answer to moral questions are not always logical answers and can be inter-subjective. They are neither fully subjective nor are they fully objective.
Therefore I have given you a touchstone to decide which pain is superior ie “how we feel about it?”
with this you can answer the hen and egg loss example as well. Watch a video of hen losing its egg its not easy to empathise.
Regarding painless slaughter, I would welcome that and start eating chicken but that is a hypothetical question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat
Post a Comment