Hypocrisy on the High Seas

In a new article published by the German newspaper, Die Welt, Australian philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer attempts to shift the international debate over whale hunting and slaughter from protecting an endangered species to protecting whales as "social mammals with big brains, capable of enjoying life and of feeling pain – and not only physical pain, but very likely also distress at the loss of one of their group." In doing so, he turns the tables on Westerners who condemn whale hunting while continuing to support other forms of hunting, and to consume the bodies and secretions of other morally relevant 'factory farmed' beings. However, it is odd that he narrows the hypocrisy to consuming factory farmed beings. After all, animals bred, confined and killed in non-intensive conditions have as much an interest in avoiding pain, suffering and death as factory farmed animals, much less free-swimming whales.

Singer's basic assertion in this piece is that it is impossible to humanely kill whales, and thus whaling is unethical. It's hard to disagree with this statement, though it begs the question of whether it is possible to humanely kill other beings. Later in the article, he refers to sentience as a basis for extending moral consideration to other beings ("the wrongness of causing needless suffering to sentient beings is not culturally specific") but, unfortunately for some animals, Singer does not seem to view sentience as a sufficient characteristic for protection from being unnecessarily treated as a means to human ends. When it comes to the wrongness of unnecessarily killing sentient beings for our purposes, presumably without causing them suffering, Singer looks to their cognitive capacity, a characteristic that is irrelevant to whether or not they deserve moral consideration.^[1]

Are some animals more equal than others?

While Singer maintains that an animal's sentience is sufficient for us to avoid unnecessarily causing him or her any pain or suffering, it is conceivable under his theory that unnecessarily killing certain animals could be justified. One gets the impression from his work that it does not harm some animals to be killed, assuming it is done painlessly. In his book, Practical Ethics, he states that there is

no single answer to the question: 'Is it normally wrong to take the life of an animal?' The term 'animal'--even in the restricted sense of 'non-human animal'--covers too diverse a range of lives for one principle to apply to all of them.^[2]

Here he determines quite arbitrarily that sentience alone is insufficient for determining whether or not it is acceptable to kill animals in the normal course of events. For Singer, there must be some criteria other than sentience we must take into account when giving equal consideration to their continued existence:

Some non-human animals appear to be rational and self-conscious, conceiving of themselves as distinct beings with a past and a future. When this is so, or to the best of our knowledge may be so, the case against killing is strong, as strong as the case against killing permanently intellectually disabled human beings at a similar mental level.^[3]

Singer basically layers cognitive capacities over sentience in order to determine whether or not it is morally acceptable for us to (painlessly) kill other beings. For Singer, the wrongness of (painlessly) killing animals derives from the loss of pleasure that it may involve, not ignoring an individual being's interest in continuing to exist. So, even if a whale could somehow be killed painlessly, it would still be wrong to kill her because she presumably has a sense of self, a sense of the future, and because any calves she had might suffer psychologically (and even physically) from the loss.

This theory is all well and good for cetaceans, primates of all species and probably most mammals, but what of beings with diminished, indiscernible, or simply no higher cognitive abilities? Do they not have an interest in continuing to survive? We can't say that they do, for that would be biologically and evolutionarily counterintuitive, regardless of their ability to conceive of themselves, the future, or any other cognitive characteristics. All sentient beings have an interest in survival, so any additional criteria are irrelevant.

Sentience: The basis for animal rights

Apparently Singer believes that non-rational, non-self-conscious sentient beings do not have an interest in continuing to exist, which justifies taking their lives for our benefit so long as it is done painlessly and so long as we replace such beings with new ones to continue experiencing pleasure in their stead, as if individual beings are somehow replaceable. He asserts that a "wrong done to an existing being can be made up for by a benefit conferred on an as yet non-existent being."^[4]

First of all, if killing a being is wrong, as Singer states it is, shouldn't we avoid committing that wrong in the first place? Second, this statement suggests that the individual matters less than that individual's capacity to sense. As long as the sensations continue, the individual sensing them appears to be totally interchangeable.

Fascinating.

How might we replace individual beings with like beings? Animals are not inanimate, insensate household furnishings you can replace at will with a quick trip to IKEA. In fact, it is this attitude toward animals that leads to problems like overpopulated shelters and rampant animal cruelty. Unlike furniture, sentient beings have a demonstrable interest in continued existence, whether or not they are rational and self-conscious, and so it harms them to end their lives, regardless of whether or not they are killed painlessly, much less "replaced" by someone else.

Even if we were able to find a suitable replacement, we would not permit the slaughter and consumption of a human being who lacks self-awareness and is irrational. This is not simply out of concern for such a person's familial attachments, nor is it due to species bias, though that may well be the rationale some individuals use. Ultimately the reason that we do not as a general matter permit the slaughter and consumption of such mentally incapacitated human beings is because we recognize that depriving them of further existence would harm them irrevocably.

By the same token, there is no justification for slaughtering and consuming nonhuman animals. As with human beings, their sentience is a sufficient criterion for us to also protect their interest in continued existence with a legal prohibition, or the basic right to not be treated as a means to our own ends.

Rights? What rights?

Of course, Singer rejects the existence of rights, beyond the term's rhetorical usefulness^[5], so how are we to protect whales under his theory, much less any other beings? He does not prescribe any remedy, other than perhaps an intimation that a morally wrong activity such as whaling ought to be rejected by those in the society that perpetrates the activity, such as Japan. In turn, anyone who objects to whaling would be hypocritical not to reject the killing of any other rational, self-aware beings--such as pigs, cows and, yes, chickens--even if it were done painlessly. But what of those that continue to accept whaling or steak-eating as morally acceptable? Without prohibitions that ban the use of nonhuman animals as a means to our ends, such practices will continue, however unpopular various types use may become.

Many countries provide basic rights for humans to avoid this very problem. Most of us agree that it is wrong to treat humans as a means to our own ends. But because some people do not agree with us, we have passed laws as a means of protecting humans from such people. Any justification for failing to extend similar basic rights to any sentient nonhumans is arbitrary, as they too have a demonstrable interest in not being used as a means to human ends.

Which animals?

If basic rights are legislated on behalf of any beings, they must be legislated on the basis of their sentience, not their cognitive capacity. Otherwise the law(s) would unjustly exclude morally relevant sentient beings. By focusing on whales--and on their cognitive capacity in particular--we risk seeing such laws passed, creating a new, arbitrarily-derived hierarchy under which some sentient beings could legally be harmed.

Certainly we should not ignore the plight of hunted whales. But we must encourage people to see whales as representative of every sentient being, and to encourage an attitude toward all beings that is consistent with their attitude toward whales. We should be asking that every sentient being is accorded the right not to be treated as a means to human ends, not just those with big brains. Otherwise, we too are hypocrites.

---

[1] The point of this entry is not for me to sit behind a computer and take potshots at Peter Singer, but to critically assess his argument, as everyone should. Because this site aims to promote animal-friendly living, in particular living a life that is consistent with respecting the interests animals have in not being used as a means to human ends, it is my goal here to further clarify the positions animal advocates ought to be taking publicly if they intend to abolish animal exploitation.

I appreciate that Singer and others are attempting to turn the international debate over whaling into one that focuses on the moral problem of unnecessarily harming animals for our benefit, rather than merely the conservation of "natural resources". However, I am concerned about the repercussions of his exclusive approach. If we base our attitude toward animals on their intelligence, and not on their sentience, we risk leaving morally relevant beings out of the discussion, and that would merely perpetuate the speciesism we are attempting to end.
[2] Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press; 2 edition, 1999) 131
[3] Ibid. 131-132
[4] Ibid. 133
[5] Herbivore Magazine, July 2007, Interview: Peter Singer

Labels: animal ethics, animal rights, sentience, whaling

I've been spread thinner than a layer of Vegenaise lately, which explains the pitiful lack of posts in recent days. Among all the proposals I am trying to finish up (for a variety of non-AAFL but definitely vegan/animal-positive projects), I have been very busy with Boston Vegan Association stuff, mainly getting off to a good start on our activism in 2008.

With a grant from FARM's Sabina Fund, we are ready to conduct our first vegan feed-in in a couple of months. Our public speaking workshop is starting to find its feet, our new vegan pamphlet is coming together, the new movie screenings committee has been formed, and we are holding our first committee meeting next week for cooking (and even un-cooking and baking) classes. I'd go into more depth, but you can get a sense for what types of work we are planning by reading our About page at the BVA site. There's also a Boston restaurants guide over there.

Then we have the "social activism," if you want to call it that. Last night, two and a half dozen BVA members and our guests joined some local friends for a gourmet vegan dinner at a French Cuban restaurant in Cambridge. Not only were we able to get together and socialize some, but we hopefully increased the viability of fine vegan dining in the city by at least a little bit (look for another, similar event to come this March). You can read more about the Chez Henri dinner here (food pictures!) and, if you live in Boston, you can experience this sort of cuisine for yourself by calling the restaurant directly.

I can't claim that I will be posting with any greater regularity between now and mid-February. After my proposals are all finished up (hopefully), I am traveling to Portland again to hang out with a bunch of my awesome vegan friends and to visit the new vegan minimall with a couple of other BVA members who have never been. I'm eager to see the reaction on their faces when they experience this vegan mecca.

So, after I return on the 11th, you'll probably be seeing more frequent updates. In the meantime, Taste Better is running my February AAFL column in three parts. I got a little long-winded about various forms of individual activism--and I barely scratched the surface!--but hopefully something in those installments will grab you and get you busy on behalf of our animal friends.

Look for the first batch of ideas ("Beginner") to go up this Friday, with "Intermediate" going up a couple of weeks later and "Advanced" going up two weeks after that. I'll return to a monthly schedule in March. If you have any topic suggestions you'd like me to consider for future columns, please email me through the contact link above.

PS - This administration can't end soon enough...

PSS - "Betrayal." Haha, that's rich. I can't decide if that is a choicer quote than "respectful distance" or not. Read the New York Times article and decide for yourself. Apologies in advance for the upset this will cause.

Labels: meta, restaurants, vegan food, whales, whaling

I really wanted to do a bunch of individual updates but, when I get behind from traveling as I did last week, the potential posts add up, especially since I also cross-post at Zaadz, CrueltyFree.com, and MySpace, all of which have their own individual time-consuming idiosyncrasies (I've given up on VeganMySpace and VegSpace for now, as they are even harder to work with, and I barely have time as it is). So, I'll post another digest and endeavor to get back into a more regular routine again. Thanks for your patience!

The Associated Press (by way of Forbes) neglects to tell readers that the EU's newly-banned cat and dog fur is morally indistinguishable from fur torn from the backs of other animals in EU Douses Cat and Dog Fur Trade.

Also from AP, this time by way of The Boston Globe, an Alaska man pleads guilty to illegally selling seal parts. The man, who once agreed to help "conserve" the "depleted" northern fur seals, if you can believe that, faces up to one year in prison and a $20,000 fine for illegally selling "more than 100 seal penises to a Korean gift shop in Anchorage, where they were to be resold for about $100 apiece in the traditional Chinese medicine trade."

Bernard Matthews, the British poultry processor that last year claimed it was committed to the "highest standards" of animal welfare, is back in the news for animal cruelty at one of its plants (Daily Mail: Bernard Matthews worker caught playing football with turkeys), further demonstrating that animals' welfare will never be assured so long as they are commodified. The story includes the damning photos and video.

From MSNBC.com: Japan kicks off whaling season along coast (WARNING: Disturbing photo of a dead whale being flensed at the top of the page). Japanese whalers, who at this year's International Whaling Commission conference found themselves under pressure for their continued whaling under the guise of science, make clear the attitude toward whales, saying that they should be managed like any other natural resource, rejecting anti-whaling arguments that the animals should be protected. This anthropocentric view of animals as natural resources must be countered prominently with the fact that these are sentient individuals suffering at the hands of the whalers, not "resources." If we are to live by our own humanitarian ethics, all sentient beings ought to be protected from such so-called harvesting.

A more positive article I dug up, from DentalPlans.com of all places, is called Taking Animals Out Of Laboratory Research. It originally appeared in Science Daily, which itself adapted a press release from the University of Nottingham, but it still bears reporting. While the piece does suggest that the immediate abolition of animal testing is not possible overnight--a self-perpetuating perspective I find particularly frustrating--it does bring with that message the good news that FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) will be officially opening its new Alternatives Laboratory on July 6th:

Pioneering work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research — and ultimately remove them from laboratories altogether — has received a major boost at The University of Nottingham.

A laboratory devoted to finding effective alternatives to animal testing has been expanded and completely remodelled in a £240,000 overhaul designed to hasten the development of effective non-animal techniques.

Scientists hope that by developing the use of cell and tissue cultures, computer modelling, cell and molecular biology, epidemiology and other methods, they will one day be able to completely remove animals from medical research — while still maintaining crucial work to defeat diseases that affect millions of people.

While I'm encouraged to see efforts to end animal research, that day can't come soon enough for the nonhuman animals who shouldn't be kept in cages and experimented on for our own specious purposes in the first place.

Labels: animal experimentation, animal testing, companion animals, fur, pets, poultry, turkeys, whales, whaling, wildlife, wildlife trade

Whenever I do these round-ups, I almost feel like I should just be podcasting again. Then I remember how long it takes to record, output, compress and upload the podcast, all in addition to writing up show notes. I could probably write full blog entries for each of these before I would have time to do all that.

So, in the interests of getting these links out while they're still relatively fresh, here goes another batch of news updates. I really do want to comment on them, as there is much to say. To that end, I have included very brief notes after each link, along with a sample quote from each article, but I don't have the time (a real problem lately) to dissect any of these thoroughly. I hope that my faithful readers will easily see the many issues with some of these pieces, including the first headline:

The New York Times: Being Nice to the Bacon, Before You Bring It Home

Retailers clearly see advantages in appealing to the demographic of kinder and gentler meat-eaters, according to Ron Paul, president of Technomic, a Chicago-based research and consulting firm for food suppliers. “There is a growing realization that the humane movement is a long-term movement,” he said. “It’s not going to go away.”

NOTE - Fair warning: The above quote is one of the least aggravating to be found in the article. Letters to the editor

Feedstuffs FoodLink: Producers urged to speak out

Dairy, meat and poultry producers are urged to form a food industry "force" before activists distort even more benefits of modern production practices.

NOTE - I'm always interested to read industry newsletters and websites. It's clear from this and other recent industry reading that large-scale animal exploiters are reeling from the heightened scrutiny over their practices these past few years--including the announcements of this past week or so--putting them on the defense. It appears there is a concerted effort by some in the world of animal exploitation to stir up well-financed and unified campaigns to subvert activist campaigns with more misleading feel-good imagery. "Happy cows," anyone?

The New York Times | EDITORIAL: Japan’s Whaling Obsession

A few outlying countries continue commercial or dubiously scientific whale hunts, notably Japan, which clings to its whaling ways long past the expiration of any defensible reasons for doing so.

NOTE - The above quote is the most "vocal" criticism voiced in this New York Times editorial, which is the official (and in this case, seemingly rather guarded) opinion of the paper. I had noted not long ago that it seemed NYT was providing fairly animal-friendly coverage these days, but that it was trying to "balance" that out more lately, which the previously-linked "bacon" article would seem to corroborate. Letters to the editor

The Observer | World: Court to rule if chimp has human rights

'It's untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor mental, nor social.'

NOTE - It seems just a little strange to me to give a chimp human rights, when what we ought to be doing is securing fundamental animal rights for all species, but I will be very curious indeed to see the outcome of this case. I will certainly be pleased to see rights recognized for at least one species, even as I rue the speciesist mentality that bars other animals from basic rights consideration.

The Wall Street Journal: Recent Cases Point to the Limitations of Animal Drug Tests

Animal tests at least give a broad sense of the effects of a drug. In one famous early example, a pancreatic extract successfully tested in diabetic dogs in 1921 helped to illuminate how insulin would help people with the disease. And many experimental medications are eliminated after very serious side effects show up.

Many times, however, subtle results in animals are unclear and scientists just don't know what to make of them. In the case of the new Novartis drug Galvus, James Shannon, the company's global head of pharmaceutical development, told investors that Novartis researchers "do not understand -- do not know -- the mechanism of the skin findings" in monkeys. They do know that "humans appear to react to Galvus in a very different way."

NOTE - Yup, you read that right. This was published in The Wall Street Journal. Of course, the focus here isn't at all the rights of animals not to be treated as non-consenting experimental subjects. But, while the article falls far, far short of condemning all animal testing--in fact it ultimately concludes that we need to develop better translations (models?) to make animal research more effective--it does add a rather conservative voice to the scientifically-grounded criticisms of animal experimentation.

Chicago Tribune: Happy ending unlikely for horses that escaped DeKalb slaughter

[Hooved Animal Humane Society] Executive Director Barbara Geittmann, who said she was disappointed Cavel sent the 200 horses back to suppliers, cheered that so many in the horse community had volunteered to help.

"I'm glad I don't have a face for those [horses] because that would make it harder for me, it would make them individuals," Geittmann said. "But it doesn't stop us. It makes us want to try harder."

NOTE - Focuses on the fall-out from the federal decision to uphold a total ban on horse slaughter in the U.S., including a note that some horses would likely be shipped to Canada for slaughter (until a federal ban on transporting horses for slaughter is passed). I can't help but remark that this would be a non-issue if horses weren't bred or "broken" for human purposes in the first place.

Labels: animal agriculture, animal ethics, animal experimentation, animal intelligence, animal law, animal testing, animal welfare, horse slaughter, horses, whales, whaling

MSNBC.com: Japan cuts short Antarctic whale hunt

The damage from a fire on the Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru has curtailed the country's whaling program for the season, falling 352 whales short of their goal of 860, prompting this head-shaking quote:

"This is the first time in 20 years that we've had to cancel our research," said Takahide Naruko, the head of the Fisheries Agency's Far Seas Division. "We are very disappointed."

Has anyone actually seen any actual scientific data come out of this alleged research? Not that it would make the slaughter any more acceptable, but if we could pierce the lie and confront these killers, maybe we could stop this senseless annual massacre.

The story says that the next "hunt" will occur in May, with the goal of killing another 350 whales. What a noble goal... Can someone tell me how killing 350 whales out at sea (in addition to the 508 they killed on this go around), flensing them, and turning them into cuts of meat benefits science? Everyone knows the research excuse is a facade. It's time for international opposition to put a firm end to this farce.

Labels: whaling, wildlife

According to BBC NEWS is joining the moral slide backward on whale hunting, including members of an endangered species:

Icelandic ships will take nine fin whales, an endangered species, and 30 minke whales each year.

In a statement, the fisheries ministry said the nation was dependent on living marine resources, and would keep catches within sustainable limits.

Norway is the only other country to hunt commercially; most are bound by a 20-year moratorium. Currently Iceland hunts minkes for "scientific research".

Ah, there's that word "sustainable." They're such conservationists, killing an endangered species.

Iceland maintains local stocks are high enough to permit some hunting, despite the endangered status of the fin.

"The total stock size of central and north Atlantic minke whales is close to 70,000 animals, of which around 43,600 are in Icelandic coastal waters," said the government's statement.

"The number of fin whales in the [area] is estimated at around 25,800 animals.

"The catches are clearly sustainable and therefore consistent with the principle of sustainable development."

In other words, we can break the rules because they don't apply to us. It's unclear how Iceland is dependent on "living marine resources" considering they hope to export their kills to Japan, rather than sustaining their own population. Arni Finnsson, of the the Iceland Nature Conservation Association tells us

"There is no market for this meat in Iceland, there is no possibility to export it to Japan; the government appears to have listened to fishermen who are blaming whales for eating all the fish.

"This decision is giving the finger to the international community."

I'm sure there's more to their decision than that, but clearly they got fed up waiting for the International Whaling Commission's renegotiation on the Revised Management Scheme that they had hoped would allow them to take more whales within the system. Since things haven't gone their way, they're taking matters into their own hands.

It's hard as a country to point fingers at others for taking matters into their own hands, when we have so recently done the same thing in Iraq, for example. Fortunately there's international resistance to Iceland's whaling. The question is what on earth is going to be done about it?

Labels: whaling, wildlife