Despite adding the PETA banner link to my blog today, I'd be the first to admit that I am by no means an animal rights activist. However, I sympathise broadly with their cause. I take the view that human beings are the highest form of life on this planet and all other living things are our resources, in some ways, no different from the non-living resources.
Before I get castigated for this view, let me explain that a number of things flow from this premise. As the highest form of living being on this planet, our existence is nevertheless not independent from the existence of all the other living things on this planet. We have a responsibility (admittedly based on self-interest) to see that all our resources, both living and non-living are properly managed so that our continued existence will not be compromised. Sorry if this sounds cold but I am a lawyer.
The category of living resources may be sub-divided into plant and animal. Leaving aside the plant sub-division for this purpose of this post, the focus falls on the animal sub-division. Some of the more fervent PETA members (and others who may not be PETA members) may chose, on grounds of conscientious objection, not to eat meat or any other animal product. That's their prerogative. However, our biology dictates otherwise. We share a similar dentition to omnivorous animals which is a very strong suggestion that we are meant to eat both plants and animals. If we were meant to eat only plant matter, we would have evolved to have a dentition similar to herbivores and likewise, if we were only meant to eat animal matter, we would have evolved to have a carnivorous dentition.
One of the consequences of the premise that human beings are the highest form of life on this planet is that we have the ability to choose, notwithstanding our evolutionary proclivity, to either accept or deny our omnivorous evolutionary heritage.
If we choose to accept our evolutionary heritage, as I do, so long as our animal resources are properly managed, there is no reason why we cannot, in good conscience, sleep well knowing that an animal has sacrificed its life for our benefit. This gives rise to 2 questions:
1. What proper management of our animal resources entails; and
2. Depending on what the answer to the first question is, whether the animal resources concerned were in fact properly managed.
To answer the first question with by organic and free-ranging farming, followed by humane slaughtering is probably overly simplistic and perhaps in some circumstances, unrealistic. There are many shades of grey to the concepts and practices of "organic", "free-range" farming and "humane slaughtering". I'm no expert in animal husbandry, farming or food production and I don't intend to get into a debate as to what these concepts and practices entail. It is a matter of conscience of each individual and so long as the animal matter consumed does not cause you to lose sleep because your conscience is troubling you about how the animal was farmed and slaughtered, then the minutiae of these concepts and practices is largely irrelevant.
In some circumstances where the farming and slaughtering of animals is clearly unconscionable but the cost is the loss of human life by starvation - would this be acceptable as proper management of animal resources? Animal rights activists who do not lack food alternatives would no doubt find it easy to take the view that the unconscionable farming and slaughtering of animals does not amount to proper management of animal resources under
any circumstances. Would they still be standing on their moral high ground if they had no non-animal food alternatives and death by starvation was a certainty? At what point, if at all, would they be prepared to renouce their moral objections to the farming and slaughtering of animals at the expense of their own lives?
As a human being, I find it very difficult to believe that any my fellow human beings would be prepared to sacrifice their lives so that an animal could be saved from the dinner table. It would be under very exceptional circumstances that a human being would sacrifice his life for another and I would imagine that it would be under the most exceptional of exceptional circumstances that a human being would be prepared to sacrifice his life for an animal. It is for the same reason that even self-proclaimed animal lovers are prepared to euthanise animals whereas the practice of euthanasia on human beings is still very much a taboo, not to mention, illegal in many jurisdictions.
The second question is probably easier to answer as it is essentially a factual inquiry, as opposed to a moral inquiry which is the first question. Once the answer to the first question has been determined, the second question can be simply answered with reference to the standards imposed by the answer to the first question.
The more astute readers among you will have noticed that while I have suggested how the two questions could be answered, I have not actually ventured to suggest any specific answers to those questions. I have, actually alluded to an answer earlier in this post. I believe that it is a matter of conscience for each individual. There is a danger to adopting a very high moral ground on this issue as it is easier to fall into hypocrisy from a high moral ground than a lower moral ground.
So much for animals as food. What about animals as pets?
Most people who keep animals as pets would never think of them as food in ordinary circumstances but in the face of starvation would you eat the family dog?
Admittedly, it would be very difficult to eat something which you have formed an emotional attachment to. The loss, and the manner of the loss would be emotionally traumatic.
On the other hand, farming families have to deal with this type of loss as a regular part of their lives. It is possible that they deal with this in a number of ways. One way is to treat the farmed animals as purely animal resources, that is to say, have no emotional attachment to them whatsoever (apart from the way that an individual may have an emotional attachment to a valuable non-living asset). Where emotional attachment may be unavoidable, the individual may nevertheless understand and accept that the animal has been farmed and will be slaughtered in a way that his conscience will not be troubled and be grateful for the life of the animal which has been sacrificed for his continued existence.
As I indicated earlier in this blog, I generally have no qualms about eating meat. That said, I wouldn't eat the family pet, especially not one as cute and loveable as the puppy in the picture. It may be easier for me to say this as I don't have a pet but if I do have one in the future, I hope that I will never find myself in a situation where I have to decide between my life (or the life of a human being I love) and the life of a pet to which I am emotionally attached. Where the choice is between the life of a human being I love and the life of a pet, the choice is clear. Choosing the life of a pet over the life of another human being might even be a criminal offence! However, where the choice is between my own life and the life of a beloved pet, the choice is not so clear. At least for me it isn't.
