|
The Value of Life:
Asking ourselves the tough moral questions
Why do we consider some animals companions, and others
food?
It can only be explained by "speciesism". Like racism,
speciesism (a term coined by Peter Singer in his 1975 classic,
Animal Liberation) is an irrational belief structure through
which we allow ourselves to hold the conviction, with no
objective basis, that some living beings are somehow higher,
more noble, and deserve an easier fate, while others are
somehow lesser and only suitable for exploitation to benefit
others (for example as slaves, as prostitutes, as manual
labourers). It's a handy framework of belief which allows
us to feel ok about exploiting others for our own convenience.
Here's a home-grown example. Why are whales and dolphins
the subject of great concern and protective measures in
Australia, while Bluefin tuna, also an endangered species,
continue to be exploited on a large scale in South Australia?
Like whales, Bluefin tuna are warm-blooded creatures and
are no less magnificent, growing up to 2 metres in length,
living up to 40 years, and swimming up to 100 km or more
a day in their natural environment. The Bluefin Tuna has
also been a critically endangered species since 1996.
So what do whales and dolphins have that tuna don't? Answer:
here in South Australia, we make a lot of money from tuna
- about $305 million per year.
Why are dogs considered "man's best friend", while pigs
- shown to be equally intelligent and equable companions
- are considered suitable for sandwiches? Why, for that
matter, are dogs and cats considered "friends" - and utterly
uneatable - in the West, and "food" in many countries in
Asia? These examples serve to demonstrate the degree to
which "speciesism" is both irrational and culturally relative
- in other words, a habit and convention agreed on among
a specific community.
"Speciesism" is in fact one way in which modern society
resolves the contradiction inherent in our attitude to animals.
Animals have helped us throughout history, and have been
instrumental in bringing human society to the point where
we can sustain ourselves without taking the lives of others.
Increasingly, our need and desire for their company is recognised
scientifically as well as in many individuals' personal
experience. Yet we want to have our cake and eat it too
- enjoy animals as companions and friends, and still indulge
our appetite for meat! So we conveniently categorise animals
in our heads into those we pat and cuddle, and those we
eat (and others which we keep in zoos, hunt, put in circuses,
and so on).
Modern human society prides itself on its ethical sensibilities.
We have outlawed racism, homicide, infanticide - and even
(supposedly) cruelty to animals! We are more than ever concerned
about the natural environment, more than ever interested
in pursing personal and spiritual development. Concepts
such as "universal love" and "compassion" are now common
catchcries in countries like Australia, and belief systems
such as Buddhism, which emphasise compassion and respect
for life, are increasingly embraced.
Yet the massive slaughter goes on. Hundreds of millions
of animals continue to be slaughtered every day, and we
conveniently don't ask ourselves what really goes on inside
the slaughterhouse... and whether it is morally tolerable.
We have established consensus on the value of life, be
it that of the aged, the disabled, children, or even human
foetuses. Yet most of us continue to disregard the lives
we take daily to produce our food. Meat-eating is a gargantuan
machine which consumes hundreds of millions of animal lives
daily.
We humans maintain incredible fear, awe and respect for
death when it affects our own species. We go to infinite
pains to sustain life while it remains, and then to honour
and remember the deceased.
When it comes to the death of animals, we do what we can
to disguise it, rename it (flesh is 'meat', cows are 'beef',
killing is 'slaughter' and so on), and few of us are willing
to venture inside a slaughterhouse to see what really takes
place within. Yet to satisfy our appetites, and above all,
our habits, we continue to condone and participate in murder
on a massive scale, perpetrated daily.
A single life
The figures are staggering. Well over 52 billion animals
are killed each year for food. Yet we also cannot be excused
from asking ourselves: if it was only a single animal's
life, would this make it any more excusable? If it is not
necessary to take a life, are we justified in doing so?
When it comes to humans , the consensus is clearly 'no'.
Murder is not justified unless it can be demonstrated to
be clearly a case of self defence. Even soldiers are prohibited
from taking enemy lives except in certain clearcut situations
of combat. Is it not time we extended our moral sensibility
to other beings, and viewed them as friends, rather than
food?
Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian writer and author of War
and Peace, wrote: "A man can live and be healthy without
killing animals for food; therefore if he eats meat, he
participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of
his appetite. And to act so is immoral." 
© Vegetarian Action October 2005
|
