Vegetarianism and an Argument Against Factory Farming

Vegetarianism has emerged as a popular lifestyle choice among individuals who wish to oppose the exploitation of animals for human consumption. However, vegetarianism is not the only avenue available for those who advocate against animal cruelty. A conscientious omnivore can also play a significant role in preventing such exploitation. If factory farming were to be abolished, humans could engage in the practice of consuming animals without compromising their moral integrity. Nevertheless, even in a world without factory farming, we must establish a clear distinction between the animals that can be ethically consumed and those whose consciousness is so closely aligned with ours that eating them would be morally indefensible.

The Ethical Dilemma of Eating Animals

The primary argument for vegetarianism is rooted in the belief that humans and animals share a common consciousness, making it unethical to consume them. While this perspective holds some truth, it is not entirely accurate. Certain species should indeed be excluded from our diets due to their capacity for self-reflective consciousness. For instance, both David Quammen in "Beast in the Mirror" and Ann Gibbons in "Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives" highlight the striking fact that humans share approximately 98.6% of their DNA with Great Apes. This genetic closeness underscores the importance of recognizing how similar their consciousness is to ours, which is crucial for drawing ethical lines regarding consumption. The key question we must consider is: Does the animal possess an understanding of death?

Understanding Consciousness in Animals

In addressing the aforementioned question, it is essential to look beyond conventional expectations of which species comprehend the concept of death. While Great Apes, Bonobos, and Chimps are well-known examples of such species, others like elephants and dolphins also meet the criteria. If an animal grasps the significance of death, it should not be consumed. Conversely, if the animal only experiences physical suffering, it may be acceptable to eat it. However, we must remember that as rational beings, we have a moral obligation to ensure that the pain an animal experiences is minimized, ideally limited to a swift end during slaughter.

Redefining Speciesism

Richard Ryder, contributor to "Animals, Men, and Morals" and an advocate for animal rights, coined the term "speciesism" to describe the belief that humans are entitled to treat members of other species in ways that would be deemed unacceptable among our own kind. While this definition holds, it can be expanded. Speciesism encompasses the notion that those of us who understand death and, therefore, experience emotional suffering, have the right to treat those who do not possess such understanding differently. In my interpretation, "we" includes any species with a conscious mind capable of recognizing the finality of death and, consequently, the emotional ramifications that accompany it.

The Distinction of Human Consciousness

The belief I advocate for diverges significantly from anthropocentrism. I do not subscribe to the Cartesian view that humans bear little responsibility toward other animals or the natural world. Instead, I assert that a critical line exists between species with self-reflective consciousness and those without. Not all animals possess consciousness, and not all are devoid of it. While I acknowledge that certain animals can comprehend death, I maintain that our natures are inherently different. As Michael Pollan articulates, "The very indeterminacy of our appetites, and the ethical prospects that opens up, marks us as a fundamentally different kind of creature." Immanuel Kant also pointed out that "we alone are the moral animal, the only capable of even entertaining a notion of 'rights.'” This capacity for moral reasoning and ethical discourse sets us apart from other species, compelling us to recognize both our similarities and differences in consciousness.

The Impact of Factory Farming

The crux of the issue surrounding animal consumption lies in the manner we fulfill the ever-increasing demand for meat. Factory farming has engendered a profound disconnect between humans and the animals they consume. As Simon Baron-Cohen notes in "The Science of Evil," treating beings as objects results in a shutdown of empathy. Factory farming perpetuates this detachment, rendering animals as mere commodities rather than living beings with whom we share the planet. It is possible to consume meat without moral compromise, but this cannot be achieved through the inhumane practices of factory farming.

The Shift in Agricultural Practices

Historically, farming was a symbiotic relationship between farmer and animal. However, with the advent of factory farming, this dynamic has shifted dramatically. Farmers have become profit-driven entities, while animals have been reduced to disposable commodities. We must reclaim the profound connection we once had with the animals we consume, recognizing their sacrifices as privileges rather than entitlements. As Pollan aptly states, "What is wrong with eating animals is the practice, not the principle." The moral stain lies not in the act of consuming animals, but in the exploitative methods employed in factory farming.

Confronting the Reality of Factory Farming

J.M. Coetzee's assertion of "a crime of stupendous proportions" aptly characterizes factory farming. This practice has remained largely invisible to the public eye, perpetuated by barriers such as genetic modification and physical separation between consumers and the animals they eat. For instance, while we consume beef, we often forget that it originates from a cow. In pre-factory farming days, food chains linked us to the earth's fertility and the sun's energy. Today, that relationship has been overshadowed by profit motives.

Awareness and Action

When we consume meat from factory farms, we do so in ignorance. The design of these operations actively fosters this ignorance, allowing us to overlook the suffering endured by the animals on our plates. Most individuals are unaware of the stark differences between factory-farmed and humanely raised animals. Corporations perpetuate this ignorance by obscuring the realities of animal exploitation, often hiding the slaughter process from public view. This opacity has led society to commit egregious acts against animals that sacrifice their lives for our consumption.

A Call for Change

The dissonance in our treatment of other species will inevitably challenge our moral compass. We must confront the brutal realities faced by animals in factory farming and advocate for humane alternatives. While vegetarianism promotes the end of factory farming, the practice of consuming meat has been integral to human culture for millennia. As Pollan notes, "One of the odder ironies of animal rights: It asks us to acknowledge all we share with animals, and then to act toward them in a most un-animalistic way." Eating meat is part of our evolutionary history, yet factory farming represents a departure from rationality and compassion. It is imperative that we honor the sacrifices of other species by adopting humane farming practices.

References

• Pollan, Michael. "The Omnivore's Dilemma."
• Quammen, David. "Beast in the Mirror."
• Gibbons, Ann. "Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives."
• Ryder, Richard. "Animals, Men, and Morals."
• Coetzee, J.M. "The Lives of Animals."
• Baron-Cohen, Simon. "The Science of Evil."