Carnivorous Thoughts, Part II

Part II of my thoughts on being vegetarian features an exploration of the argument against suffering. Foer provides extensive evidence regarding the suffering that animals endure in the meat industry: chickens formulated to grow so quickly and to such large sizes that they often break their legs, veal that is kept in tiny pens to reduce movement and killed at a young age, slaughterhouses that use excruciatingly painful machines and techniques for killing animals, etc, the list goes on and on. Foer also contrasts these grotesque images with case examples of private farmers whose practices are drastically less painful for the animal, such as by providing more food, exercise, and living space for the animals. Though these farmers are sadly few and far between, they do open the discussion up to whether it is possible to eat meat ethically if one disregards the argument that it is intrinsically wrong to kill an animal without necessity. Indeed, the question is even if we grant that it is acceptable to kill animals for food, what then makes it acceptable for the killing to entail great suffering?

Foer inquires as to the exact definition of suffering, providing several interpretations and understandings of the term. In doing so, he offers the intriguing puzzlement as to how we are even able to identify suffering in animals. We define suffering according to human conceptions of suffering and diagnose suffering in animals according to symptoms and/or features that humans express when suffering. This introduces the concern of whether we can truly ever understand animal suffering, as we are unable to communicate with animals the way we can with fellow humans and must inevitably view animals through human lenses. Furthermore, even suffering in humans is hard to define absolutely. What does it mean to suffer? This question can get even murkier: is it possible to be ignorant of suffering? Can we determine whether an individual is in fact suffering even if it is obvious to ourselves without it being clear to the individual? These are difficult questions to answer even when just discussing humans, let alone when applied to animals.

However, it feels objectively clear that the current meat industry and factory farms use inhumane methods and practices for raising and slaughtering animals. The term inhumane itself also introduces fascinating question. Inhumane literally has the word “human” within it. So what if it is inhumane to slaughter a cow by hanging it upside down, slitting its throat, and letting the blood drain? A cow is not a human. Furthermore, it is inevitable that humans would treat animals inhumanely: animals simply are not human and it is impossible to treat them as such. But it is a rather incoherent leap from this premise to the conclusion that it is acceptable to inflict animals with undue suffering. Our sensibilities suggest that although the living creature is not a human, animals deserve some level of respect, even if not the level at that of a human. So what level of that is it and how do we draw the line? This question goes back to the just mentioned previous discussion’s difficulties: how do we measure suffering in animals and if it is okay to kill animals, what level of suffering is acceptable when doing just that? Immanuel Kant argues that the way we treat animals is a reflection of how we treat one another. As such, to some extent, the idea of being humane does translate to the way we treat animals, for it is an extension and reflection of how we treat humans. One can logically and easily conclude therefore that the best way to bring about world peace is to put vegetarians in charge. Q.E.D.

By: Naomi Scheinerman

(Photo by Vincent van der Pas under a Creative Commons license)