The controversy of comparing human and non-human animal suffering and putting it into context

Introduction for non-vegans

In industries of animal exploitation, non-human animals are subjected to rape, psychological distress, physical torture and are killed (murdered) in order to produce various animal products for human-animals to consume. Humans have no biological necessity for any of these products. They simply exist for pleasure, convenience and most of all, profit. These are trivial reasons to commit such horrific acts against sentient-persons. (For anyone who has not witnessed the reality of animal use, please watch the documentary Earthlings available free online at www.earthlings.com as an introduction).

Such industries cannot be successfully regulated. A property owner has the legal right to do almost anything to their animal property, no matter how much pain or distress this may cause the non-human animal, as long as there is a perceived purpose (i.e some kind of gain for the owner such as increased profits). A property owner can breed more animals and lethally dispose of them at will. (Check out Animals, Property And The Law by Gary L. Francione for further evidence of this). When you are someone else’s property you have no rights. Your life has no moral value. Your body is someone else’s to use against your will. Beyond exploitation, it is quite literally slavery. Welfare regulation becomes meaningless and indeed only comes into effect when it benefits the producer (by increasing production efficiency and profit). Any minor benefit experienced by the non-human animal is incidental. Welfare regulation fails as a practical matter, but more importantly as a moral one. We should not be advocating for “humane” (regulated) animal use any more than we should be advocating for humane rape or humane human slavery. Simply regulating the suffering misses the point of why it is morally objectionable in the first place.

Animal use is a deeply ingrained habit in our society. Animal product consumption is a “normal” part or our culture. We consume these products without giving any thought to where it came from or how it was produced. The fact that it [the final product] is or came from a non-human person never enters our consciousness. The true horror of what goes on is committed behind closed doors. Very few have any idea of what really happens. There is a severe disconnect between the finished product in our hand and the individual who suffered and died for it. We are not taught about it (in any detail) and are encouraged to ignore it. We go along with it without question simply because it is the social norm.

Speciesism

Our society is also deeply speciesist. Speciesism, like racism, sexism or heterosexism, is discrimination against an individual based upon an irrelevant characteristic (such as species, gender, skin colour or sexual orientation), and claiming that this makes them inferior and therefore not entitled to the same rights or inclusion in the moral community as the rest of us. It is our claim that we are superior to other animals that we use as an excuse to use them in any way we choose, regardless of the suffering and cruelty this involves. This judgement stems from religious teachings, patriarchy or is often based upon the human definition of intelligence.

Does someone’s intelligence, race, gender or sexual orientation somehow negate their ability to suffer or give us some kind of right to use their body as we see fit? No. Non-human animals, like us, experience emotions, pain and suffering. They are “sentient”. This is a scientific fact. They love and have social bonds (family and friends), have preferences, individual personalities and interests-including the interest to carry on living and avoid pain. In that regard we have a lot in common with other animals-all the characteristics that make one a “person”. This is certainly true of the species we routinely exploit in their billions. This should not come as a surprise as humans are animals too, and these aspects of our being have come about as a result of evolution in order to aid survival (we are not “special” in that regard).

Regardless of how similar or dissimilar a particular species is to our own however, the key factor that should be observed is their sentience. If an individual can experience suffering, then we have a moral obligation not to inflict it upon them and not to treat them simply as a thing.

Putting it in context

Non-human animals (particularly those we have deliberately domesticated for our use) are exceptionally vulnerable individuals. They cannot defend themselves. When we trap a cow and artificially inseminate her on a “rape-rack”, she cannot stop us from forcefully violating her body. She cannot stop us from kidnapping her baby and stealing her milk. When her body is exhausted from repeated pregnancies and she starts to produce less milk, she cannot stop us from slitting her throat.

Why is it that such acts of violence, cruelty and suffering are acceptable in society, yet anything like it committed against humans is unanimously agreed upon as morally wrong?

Most pet "owners" love their non-humans animals as members of their family. They already recognise them as sentient unique individuals. While they would be horrified if their pet were to be the victim of unnecessary suffering and violence and used as a thing, many do not spare a thought about doing the same thing to a non-human person of a different species. What is the difference? Why are we morally inconsistent? Speciesism is a big part of it.

Why do some vegans compare animal use to paedophilia/rape?

In paedophilia, there is a victim (a human child). The victim is vulnerable and cannot defend themselves against the attacker. It is an act of violence that inflicts psychological and physical suffering seemingly for the sake of pleasure.

Similarly, when someone is raped, it is an act of violence against a vulnerable individual causing suffering (and in some cases death), for the sake of pleasure or some other emotional satisfaction¹.

Rape and child molestation are particularly disturbing to us, because the victims are robbed of their personhood and used as a means to an end like a thing. This is the key similarity between these acts and animal exploitation. When we use animals, we disregard their personhood completely and treat them like disposable resources.

As a society we agree that it is wrong to treat another human (a “person”) as a thing to be used by someone else. By extension, we unanimously agree that it is wrong to inflict suffering upon a “person”-it is “immoral”.  

The perpetrator of such violence may argue that it is their personal choice to engage in such behaviour, or that there is some benefit to be had, but we maintain that morality and the suffering of their victim overrules any right to commit such acts, action is taken against them and the vulnerable are protected. More importantly, all humans (at least in Western society) have the basic legal right not to be the property of another-they cannot be used/treated as a “thing”, no matter what the justification.

Sadly, non-human animals are not provided the same protection. As yet they do not have the right not to be used like this, yet we have no sound excuse as to why this is. Vegans are those who reject violence against non-humans (and humans alike) and do not participate in their exploitation (primarily by not buying/consuming any animal product or product tested on animals). The point of “animal rights” is to recognise all sentient beings as having moral personhood, so that they are respected as persons and legally protected from being used as things. It is about applying the beliefs we already hold about one group to all-to be morally consistent.

To use such comparisons as rape/child molestation is to bring to light why it is we (humans in general) consider acts of violence and violation of personhood acceptable in one context, yet horrific and immoral in another, when in reality there is little difference. Particularly from the perspective of the innocent victim. Most people never think about animal use as being a moral matter, it takes pointing out the similarities between this and other acts of violence to open their eyes to the reality. It is necessary to recognise this if we are to be morally consistent. As well as it being our moral obligation to respect animals as persons, many maintain that humanity will never evolve beyond violence and discrimination within our own species as long as we continue to inflict it upon non-human animals-as long as we still discriminate against those we can over power. 

Why does this make non-vegans angry?

Comparing animal product consumption to paedophilia/rape makes people angry for a variety of reasons:

            Non-vegans assume you are calling them a paedophile/rapist. 

      Nobody is calling non-vegans paedophiles/rapists. Absolutely no one. This is a misunderstanding.  Neither is anyone saying that the acts are literally identical. What is being compared is the morality of abusing and exploiting a vulnerable victim for the sake of someone else’s pleasure/gain AND the negating of someone’s personhood to use them as a thing.

 Paedophilia is an abnormal behaviour that is not morally acceptable in society. Consuming animal products is considered acceptable. Suddenly you are putting consumers in the same box as a paedophile.

Paedophilia is a freak occurrence and is unanimously rejected by society. However not all behaviours that are considered “normal” = moral. Humans have a desperate need for social acceptance. This can often lead to automatically following the position of the majority, sometimes without questioning it or applying any critical thought or analysis. To suddenly shift someone from a position of social acceptance to one of social minority/rejection, certainly incites discomfort.

Many regard the acts of paedophilia/rape as “evil” and do not consider themselves to be “evil” in consuming animal products (it should be noted that no vegan accuses anyone of being “evil” for consuming animal products-this is a conclusion people jump to themselves. All who have gone vegan started off consuming animal products, we are all indoctrinated within a speciesist society). This comparison is then offensive to them.

What must be pointed out is that these comparisons are made in order to question why we don’t think of animal use as being a moral matter-To shift the paradigm of thought. Nobody is pointing the finger at non-vegans and degrading them to the moral status of paedophiles.

Which leads on to:

3.       We assume that paedophiles/rapists have the intention to cause suffering/harm. People who consume animal products do not have this intention.

When many think of paedophiles/rapists, they picture them as having a malicious intention. It is presumed that said parties are aware that their actions are going to cause suffering and harm, yet they disregard this and do it anyway (some may describe this as “evil”). When someone consumes an animal product, they don’t have a malicious intent to cause suffering. It doesn’t even cross their mind that they are inflicting suffering as they are often not aware of it-such is the extent of the disconnect between sentient animal-person and finished product.

However, what we must observe is, no matter what your intention the end result is the same. In both scenarios there is a victim who endures extreme suffering (and in the case of the animals usually death) for the sake of pleasure. They don’t care what your intention is. When you buy/consume any animal product, you are paying for an individual to be enslaved/raped/tortured/killed on your behalf. You are creating demand for this to continue. The industry exists because you participate in it. You are making a choice to deliberately harm for a trivial reason. This is the uncomfortable reality.

4.       Speciesism: “It is offensive to compare violence/suffering against humans with that of animals because animals are inferior”.

It is speciesism that maintains the false belief that the suffering of non-human animals is irrelevant because they are “inferior” to us and therefore not worthy of moral consideration. While some individuals may genuinely not be aware of the suffering animal persons endure in being used and killed for humans, some who are aware of it may disregard it because of speciesism, or even use this as an excuse. But this is simply discrimination. It is easy to discriminate against a disempowered group, particularly one who cannot speak out or defend themselves. It is convenient to do so if this fits in with social norms.

We do not judge whether an individual deserves moral consideration on the basis of irrelevant criteria. To say humans are “superior” to other animals because we are “more intelligent” for example, (and therefore that we can use those who are “less intelligent”) ignores that not every human would fit into this group and could justify using very young children and the mentally disabled in medical experiments. This is ridiculous of course, because it is not “intelligence” that defines one as a “person” and whether or not they can be used by another. There are many speciesist excuses. The only consistent criterion that “qualifies” one for personhood and moral consideration is sentience.

The sentience of non-human animals is not a matter of opinion, it is a scientific fact. As such, it is our obligation to include them in our moral community, at the very least with the basic right not to be used as things.

  

5.       To acknowledge that animal use is immoral in the same way that other acts of violence like rape/paedophilia are, is to admit you are taking part in something just as horrific.

Perhaps the most important point to make is that if we acknowledge that like paedophilia and rape, animal use is also morally wrong, then we have to take personal responsibility for our actions. Rather than admit that they had been the cause of something so awful, people would rather try and rationalise (with the use of speciesism) that it couldn’t possibly be as bad as if it were happening to humans (and therefore it must be ok). Humans have an incredible capacity for denial. Especially when “everyone else is doing it”-again comes the rationalisation of social acceptance that often acts as a barrier to changing personal conduct.

All who have gone vegan have been through this. But it is better to deal with feelings of guilt or discomfort and acknowledge why they are there than to ignore them, excuse them and continue to be the cause of mass suffering. Nothing feels as uplifting and liberating as the decision to stop participating in animal exploitation.


 “But it’s legal to exploit animals, paedophilia is illegal. Doesn't that mean using/consuming animals is ok?

“Legal” and “moral” are not always the same thing. Just because something is not illegal, doesn’t automatically make it “right”. As Martin Luthor King Jr said “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. It was once legal to own another human as a slave, it was once legal to rape your wife. We cannot use “but it’s not illegal” as an excuse to overlook injustice. The law doesn’t define morality. Morality is continuously evolving and the law takes time to catch up. 

Summary: Moral consistency

Paedophilia, rape and animal use are all acts of violence that violate an individual’s personhood. The former are rejected by society, the latter accepted, purely based upon the species of the victim. Speciesism is what prevents animal use being considered as a moral matter. It perpetuates the misunderstanding that the treatment of non-human animals is the only concern, when it is using sentient persons for someone else’s gain that is morally problematic.

Although some may find it shocking or offensive to compare rape/paedophilia to animal use, it is necessary in order to highlight our moral inconsistency and the way we think of non-human persons. Either such violence, violation and discrimination is wrong or it isn’t. If we agree that it is wrong, then we need to apply this rule to all sentient persons. We need to recognise the personhood of non-human animals, respect them, and include them in our moral community. They can then have the basic right not to be owned as property, so that they cannot be used, their bodies violated, as a means to someone else’s ends. They are vulnerable individuals that need to be protected from violence.

This is not just a matter of compassion. Like the feminist and civil rights movement, it is a matter of justice.

The first step towards this is to reject violence against non-human animals in your everyday life. Stop consuming them. Go vegan-It’s easy and it’s one of the most positive things you can do in your life. Let’s build a peaceful and just world.

“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.”
Gloria Steinem

‎"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." - Thomas Edison

"We cannot justify eating animals or animal products. If you believe that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, you really have no morally sound choice but to go vegan. Is that a "black and white" statement? Yes, in the same way that we cannot justify rape or pedophilia, even if it's "humane." ~ Professor Gary Francione

"Of course, compassion is a good and important thing; but Veganism/Animal Rights are not matters of compassion. Anymore than the Feminist Movement is about 'being nice' to women, or the African-American Civil Rights Movement was about 'being kind' to African-Americans. It is a matter of justice." -Lorraine Haines

¹While motivation/cause of paedophilia/rape are more complex than the generalisation of “pleasure” (e.g mental illness, abuse, in the case of rape it can be anger etc), it is still satisfaction at the expense of another. Paedophiles incidentally, developed a cross-wiring in their brains. The part of the brain that instinctively creates nurturing behaviour towards young humans, has become crossed with the sexual attraction part of the brain. In essence, it is not their fault that they are attracted to children (it is not out of "evilness" or malicious intent). Although this need is hard-wired in, it of course does not justify acting upon it-because to do so causes harm to others. While there are also those who suffer from various learning or mental difficulties who effectively cannot understand "right and wrong", they are a minority who need to be protected and helped (and/or protect others from them depending on the illness/situation). The rest of us do not have this excuse.

We are all moral agents. No matter what our motivations, we as humans are able to morally rationalise. We can for-see the consequences of our actions  When consuming an animal product-in particular a food or fashion item, the reason is almost always pleasure. To live our lives purely selfishly at the expense, suffering and death of others is not morally justifiable.