Max Weber contends that people need to justify their deeds as good or right. A child at the age of five comprehends that what is presented with chips and ketchup is actually the lamb he draws as happily out in green pastures. During their socialization into meat-eaters people develop ways to defend their diet against vegetarians. One of the main arguments is that an animal is a lower form of being for lacking cognitive faculties humans have, and it is merely instrumental in serving people’s needs. I remember a sentence in a primary school text book telling that animals are our precious friends because we benefit from their flesh, milk and power.
Likewise, according to Immanual Kant, animals cannot be included in the moral community, because they lack the prerequisite: reason. Peter Singer and Tom Regan, two prominant figures of traditional ethical theories on animals disagree. Singer asserts that inclusion to the moral community does not depend on “whether a being can reason, but whether it can suffer”. On the other hand, Regan challenges Kant’s arguement in that many people, like infants, very old people, people with serious mental disorders etc., also lack the rational capacity required to be eligible to the moral society; thus if reason is the criterion they would be excluded from rights enjoyed by the majority of the people. Animals in his opinion have not instrumental but “inherent value”. They both agree in the value animals have, their perspectives diverge, though.
Singer has a utilitarian perspective. He concludes that “applying the principle of utility to our present situation, esp. the methods now used to rear animals for food and the variety of food available to us, leads to the conclusion that we ought to be vegetarians”. The animal, as a moral entity, has feelings. It is motivated to experience pleasure. It enjoys the life and fears death. When we capture or kill the animal,we deprive it off the further experience of the pleasure of life. Singer argues that unless alternative means for survival exists we should not eat animal flesh for taste or convinience. Most vegetarians agree that meat consumption is not a must regarding the the availability of vegetables and crops.
Regan, on the other hand, embracing a rights perspective, asserts that animals have welfare interests. They, especially adult mamals are moral entities and convey the same fundamental rights with humans, ie. right to life, security and freedom from harm, (the natural rights theoretized for while male human by John Locke) . He argues that animal meat is not one among the essential amino acids that human health requires. Therefore, our right to food cannot overcome their right to life. Moreover, since they cannot have a guilty intent in their conducts, it is not just to kill or harm them as punishment.
Most people would counter this arguments defending that if there is no hierarchy between human beings and other species, it is natural to slaughter and eat animals for personal well-being, as any other carnivor would do. Only if our nature is superior to the rest of the animals we can be ethical, and only then we can approach animals with empathy. We can, then choose to protect animals, as their masters. This arguments suffers from a strawman fallacy. First of all, Singer already agrees that humans can eat animals (or other humans) in extreme conditions of hunger. So do animals: they kill and eat each other due to nutritional needs distinct from humans due to biological factors. Secondly, neither Singer, nor Regan argue that all species are equal in moral or cognitive terms. What they want to clarify is that they are not the “ultimate other” of the Carthesian dichotomy; it is a matter of degree. Because humans have more consciousness of their deeds, they should have higher ethical standards to avoid harming other creatures. Regan’s emphasis on the lack of guilty intent in animal behavior must be reminded. Peoples kill while they don’t need to kill, and they learn ignore the guilty feeling that they ought to feel.
[ad#Google Adsense intext]
