Most vocal critics of animal cruelty in industrial agriculture come from the Left, with arguments that tend to take the form that animals have "rights" in much the same way humans do, or that utilitarian calculi of pain/pleasure must take account of non-human animals as much as humans, since most non-human animals can feel pleasure and pain. One need not come at the issue from this perspective, however. In this essay, Christian conservative writer Matthew Sculley offers a thoughtful, passionate piece on why our current treatment of animals (particularly abuse of pet animals and food animals in industrial agriculture) is un
ethical. Sculley's argument is that animals aren't ethical or moral equals to humans (in the "rights" sense of Peter Singer, for example), but that as "divinely created" beings like ourselves, they are entitled to kind and compassionate treatment by humans--our "God-appointed and created" stewards.Now those religiously-based starting points of his argument may be problematic for some people (they are for me). But I don't believe you need to share Sculley's Christianity to agree with his basic argument--at least as I understand it. Sculley basic suggests--contrary to deep ecology and anti-anthropocentric arguments--that humans are "special creations" that are superior to non-human animals in critical aspects, but that this "special" status is not merely a conversation-stopping response about why humans can do whatever they want to with animals, but a conversation-starting recognition that with special status comes special obligations, specifically the obligation to treat animals without cruelty and in a humane and decent way. I think one could as easily agree with Sculley on the "special" status of humans without deriving that from a "special creation" account lodged in Christianity or any other religious worldview. One could, I believe, simply recognize that evolution/natural selection has "bestowed" upon us a special status--including consciousness and the ability to make true choices--that creates the obligations of which Sculley speaks. Now of course that evolution/natural selection may well be viewed as God(s)-driven as well (theistic evolution), but I think his view is flexible enough to take in perhaps more than sees.
In any case check out the essay. I'm currently in the middle of the book it is drawn from (Dominion...), which is well worth a read...
PF
2 comments:
Somewhat lost in the controversy surrounding the unfortunate passage of Prop 8, was the passage of Prop 2 in California last November, requiring that veal calves, egg-producing chickens and pregnant sows be confined "only in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely."
Was it Bentham who stated that in regards to animal rights, the question should not be, "can they reason?," nor "can they talk?" but instead should be, "can they suffer?"?
But even looking at this issue from a purely anthropocentric viewpoint, it is arguably healthier for humans to treat animals humanely: more sanitary conditions, less crowding and better diets reduces the need for the boatloads of antibiotics pumped into the animals (which is leading to drug resistant bacterias); there are less stress hormones in the meat that is ultimately consumed; etc.
I couldn't agree more (health of animals = health of humans argument). I wasn't aware of Prop 2 there. Wow...talk about an eye-opener right there. As if the treatment being required--being able to stand up and lie down--was some earth-shattering concession on our part. The more I read in this book the more I like it. I think you can derive an obligation of mercy/compassion from plenty of secular places rather than some Judeo-Christian understanding of "dominion," which makes the argument even more encompassing...
Post a Comment