"How can you just stop?". Well, the answer is simple:
Where there is no need, there need not be desire.
This is a simple, life altering perspective.
Plainly put, contributing to mass animal slaughter/consumption is morally repulsive and little reason, beyond habit and greed, exists for its continuation. Of course, eating meat - or anything else for that matter - begins
involuntarily. Parents slowly start familiarising their child with different
types of cooked animal flesh from an early age. This continues throughout
her teenage years as she learns which species tastes the best after it's been deep-fried.
Along the way, she might reject some species in favour of others. Then she will
move out, start her own family, and continue the cycle of serving up for her
children a dinner made from something that was living and breathing probably
just a couple of days before.
But couldn't the same principle I'm criticising be applied to all other foods, I hear you mumble? No, it
could not. It is true that a child has no say in what she eats, but it's not true
that parents have no meat-alternative to offer. There is no law forcing
citizens to include meat in their diet, and rightly so. In
society today animals are bred, reared and butchered at an unbelievable rate,
and made available at a low profit margin. The
latest OECD-FAO figures estimate that by 2019 the average amount of
poultry consumed in the world will be 15kg/person/year. If that's not
unsettling, consider this: It is estimated that, in the US and UK alone, approximately
50,000,000,000 - 100,000,000,000 chickens are killed each year. You can find
similarly disturbing numbers pertaining to cattle, sheep, fish, and pigs.
Then why should we care? It's all food at the end of the day,
is it not? The sole purpose of these animals is to grow large enough to make their way onto our dining tables. Well, no, that's not their purpose at all. The
reason you should care is because they have interests which must be taken into
consideration in our treatment of them. They cannot be compared to
vegetables. They are not synonymous with 'food.' A comparison between a cow and a cabbage is no more meaningful than
that between a leak and a lion. Animals are sentient. They have interests and
desires. Most importantly, however, they can feel pain. As Bentham put it:
"...It may come one day to be recognized, that the number
of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are
reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.
What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse? The question is not, Can they
reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law
refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity
will extend its mantle over everything which breathes."
And so our actions must respect this principle, for there is not a
single animal on this planet without the capacity to feel pain. It is not
disputed that there are varying capacities or thresholds for suffering. A pig,
for instance, is most likely capable of feeling more pain than an ant - not
least because there's not much scope for causing anything other than
instantaneous death to an ant. But why must we disregard an animal's suffering,
regardless of its severity, by virtue of its membership of another species? We
mustn't. In Richard Dawkins' interview with Peter Singer, the
former proposed that just as there exists a continuum of capacity within
sentient beings to feel happiness or pain or anything else, therein lies
the continuum of moral responsibility we owe to them. Hence, our moral responsibility to a turkey or a cow is proportionately more than it is to something with a rudimentary nervous system, like an oyster or sea squirt. Although, ultimately, Dawkins failed to defend the morality of his position as a meat-eater, important discussion was had between the two.
Animals are capable
of, and often do, feel things like regret, remorse and bereavement. These are not exclusive to us. "The fact that some people are not members of our race does not entitle us to exploit them, and the fact that some people are less intelligent than others does not mean that their interests may be discounted or disregarded." says Singer. What
makes our species - the oh so mighty homo sapien conquerors - any more
important than a newt or ostrich or goat?
Nothing. We are capable of communicating via hundreds of sophisticated language
structures, we are able to comprehend and utilise the laws of physics to
facilitate exploration of outer space, and we have figured out a way of alienating
connecting the entire human race through a small hand held device. Yet,
none of these achievements make our lives any more important than a member of a
species that is not privy to such advancements. Should you find yourself disagreeing with this notion, you'd be falling in the newly coined category of speciesism. No dramatic variations from racism or sexism, really. You see
others as inferior and unworthy of the same respect. Unfortunately, much of our
kind supports speciesism. Whether you like it or not, if you eat or drink
or wear anything consisting of something which once lived, you're a
speciesist. A living thing had to suffer for your preference.
A popular defence to speciesism is the argument pertaining to nature. 'It's
natural' or 'that's how it works in the wild' are the frontrunners.
While there's no doubt that animals in the wild eternally entertain a kill-or-be-killed
mentality, the same is not true of our kind. Our ancestors first lived off Mother
Nature before developing the aptitude, courage, and weaponry to hunt other
living beings. And so we cannot be said to be dependent on meat for survival. Consider
the silverback gorilla - the largest of all primates - with her high-domed
skull and dagger-like teeth, capable of penetrating even the thickest bones in
our bodies. What does she eat? Plants.
Unlike us, wild animals rarely have a
choice in deciding what to eat. Of course a carnivorous animal like a lion will
hunt and kill a lone fawn it finds in its territory. Not because the fawn is intruding or risking the safety of the lion's pride, but because it's a source
of food. That's it. There is no evidence to suggest there's much thought that
goes into any such ‘decision’ – even if it counts as one. It's really an
instinct. That lion is incapable of considering the interests of the little
fawn. Animals end lives to avoid the ending of their own. That is the extent of their reasoning. Humans, for the most part, have a far
more advanced ability to reason. We are capable of considering the
consequences of our actions. We weigh opposing factors and act according to our
best judgment. Again, for the most part, we can distinguish right from
wrong. And so we need not bind ourselves to the traditions of our hairy forefathers,
for we have an abundance of food to choose from. We have the ability to choose
the right option. The option that was not dependent on suffering.
That the treatment of these animals prior to their killing is anything but revolting is simply untrue. In many cases, somewhere between their unfortunate births and miserable deaths, millions of chickens endure crammed journeys to the slaughterhouse where they die from suffocation. Those that remain are violently shackled upside down before having their throats cut by a machine (yes, machines are higher up in the pecking order). Sometimes the chickens miss the blade, and are scolded alive in boiling water. A trip to the supermarket will offer you the chance to purchase fresh, healthy
alternatives to what you've been eating your entire life.
Issues surrounding equality, discrimination or justice, much like
issues of war and conflict, are invariably based on the prejudicial attitudes of
one group towards another, in one form or another. Our attitude towards our
fellow earthlings is no different. The majority of us are content with
contributing to this animal holocaust, for that is what it is. We readily degrade,
discredit and devour other species. But as soon as we see the process through
which they're killed, our stomachs turn. We know it's abhorrent. We know they
don't deserve it. And we still go on, like it doesn't really matter. After all, there's a big difference between hunting and buying.
I'll leave you with another valuable quote, again from Singer:
"The belief that issues about humans should always
take precedence over issues about animals reflects a popular prejudice against
taking the interests of animals seriously. A prejudice no better founded than
[that] of white slave owners against taking seriously the interests of
their African slaves."
