British TV presenter Philip Schofield has been in the news this week after he ate a guinea pig while on holiday in Peru. Guinea Pigs are farmed and eaten in Peru, but are kept as companion animals or "pets" in the UK. Schofield was overwhelmed with comments on Twitter reflecting the horror and disgust many felt about his actions:
"@Schofe How could you ?? They are little pets not dinner."
"@Schofe always liked you, but eating a guinea pig is disgusting! I have guinea pigs and what you did is downright offensive."
"@schofe still absolutely disgraceful, scumbag in my opinion!"
(source (warning contains image of cooked guinea pig that some may find distressing:: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/05/phillip-schofield-guinea-pig_n_2075354.html)
When discussing the matter on This Morning (the daytime tv show he co-hosts), Schofield exclaimed that the guinea pigs were "humanely raised" and that to eat battery farmed chicken or eggs in the UK is a "far worse crime".
1. Firstly that people believe in "humane" labelling-that is, they believe that humane farming/slaughter negates any suffering of the farmed/slaughtered individuals.
2. Secondly that "humane" treatment concludes our moral obligations towards other animals.
2. Thirdly the public's moral confusion towards other animals.
Humane Labelling:
Non-human animals are chattel property under the law. The rights of property owners (the institutional users) trump the interests of the chattel property (who have no legal rights protecting them). This makes animal welfare effectively meaningless, as the property owners can do pretty much anything they like to their sentient property as long as it serves some kind of purpose in production, no matter how much pain and suffering this may cause (such as clipping tails, ears, beaks and castration without pain relief, skin branding, isolation, confinement, gassing or grinding male chicks up alive etc). (Check out http://humanemyth.org/).
Humane labelling exists as a marketing tool. When a person sees a humane/free-range/cage-free/"happy"/RSPCA Monitored label, they assume that the animals involved lived a happy life free of suffering and experienced a painless, trauma-less death. This reassures them that they need feel no guilt or concern in purchasing the bodies or by-products of animals and makes the products more appealing. Producers charge a higher price for "humane" products and those who are concerned about the welfare of animals are happy to pay it, believing they are doing a good thing for the animals. It sells them an idyllic idea that it is possible to use sentient persons without harming them.
This is of course a myth. Animal welfare regulation is only legislated in instances where there is a benefit to the producer in the long run (such as replacing old practices with more economically efficient ones that will streamline production). It exists to benefit the producer, not the animals (who, remember have *no legal rights* to protection of their interests). As a practical matter, it is impossible to effectively regulate an industry that mass producers millions of animals in the UK every year. We see this in the countless exposes that show so-called "RSPCA-Monitored" and "Humane" facilities having cruel and horrific conditions that result in severe suffering-suffering that the public believed had been magically eliminated by the promise of "humane" labelling. In fact it cannot be eliminated as it is not economically viable to do so-the price of animal products (which are already heavily subsidised by the government) would increase astronomically to make it even close to people's idea of "humane".
Use Can Never Be Humane
Secondly, the concept of humane use is a lie. Regardless of how the subject is treated, the enslavement and murder of a sentient being is morally unjust. There is no way child abuse, rape or human slavery could be regulated to make it "humane", as each act, no matter how violently or gently it is committed, necessarily involves the violation of an individual's personhood, their objectification as simply a resource to be used by someone else, overlooking the inherent value of that individual as a person and the rights to life, freedom and bodily integrity they should have. As non-human animals are sentient like us human-animals (concious, perceptually aware, experience emotions, suffering and have individual personalities etc), and it is unnecessary for humans to use them, doing so is morally comparable to using humans. Using an individual like a thing or a resource, considering them inferior, or denying them rights that protect their interests is often justified by a prejudice that discriminates on the basis of an arbitrary factor such as race, gender or sexuality. In the case of non-human animals this arbitrary factor is species, which is a form of discrimination known as speciesism.
Animal exploitation is an unjust act of violence, oppression and discrimination. No matter how it is regulated, it can never be called "humane".
Human Concern For Other Animals
Schofield clearly has concern for other animals. He is not some monster who takes pleasure in the suffering and murder of others. He clearly has at least some awareness of the extreme suffering involved in the mass production of animals for human consumption. Like most people, he empathises with the suffering of others, but in the case of non-human animals, has been made to believe that a) this suffering has been eliminated in certain instances of production by "humane" animal welfare regulation and b) that treatment is all that matters when it comes to our moral obligations to other sentient beings. This is an unfortunate consequence of animal welfare organisations who constantly tell the public of the extreme cruelty involved in animal use, but combine this with a call for regulation rather than abolition of animal use. This of course sends the message that the treatment of others is all that matters and does not bring in to the picture the actual moral issue of using another being as a resource for consumption.
Our Moral Confusion
This has led to a great deal of public confusion when it comes to non-human animals. On this occasion we have seen public outrage by people who are upset by the eating of guinea pigs. Guinea pigs are commonly kept as "pets" in the UK, animal companions who are often regarded as members of the family. They are very affectionate, gentle and intelligent little animals with unique individual personalities. For anyone who has ever had a guinea pig companion, it is very easy to see why the idea of someone killing and eating them is deeply distressing. People are upset by it because they recognise that guinea pigs are sentient persons and to kill them is not unlike killing a human person.
Unfortunately the same people who are outraged by the killing of guinea pigs, are eating, wearing and using the bodies and by-products of other animals who are sentient and just as much individual persons as guinea pigs. While this may appear to others as being an issue of sentimentality-that we are upset by some animals being killed simply because they are cute and cuddly; or that some animals may be anthropomorphized. This is not the case.
We are all conditioned to put different species into different categories in our minds. Some are labelled as "pets", some as "food", some as "clothing", "laboratory subject" and "entertainment/sport". There is no reason for this, other than how we have decided non-human animals may be of use to us. As a result many species fit into all the human-created categories. For example, dogs are loving companion animals, but they are also used as laboratory subjects and vivisected, and for entertainment in dog fighting, dog racing, dog shows and hunting etc. As guinea pigs are "pets" in the UK and "food" in Peru, dogs and cats are "pets" (and laboratory subjects/entertainment) in the UK, but "food" and "fashion" (fur) in Asia. As cows are "sacred" in parts of Asia, they are "food" and "fashion" (leather) in the UK.
People are particularly upset by the harming of animals belonging to species they have spent time with, gotten to know as persons and formed an emotional bond with. In the UK, this happens to often be dogs, cats and other small animals. The public rarely get to experience this with farmed animals (cows/pigs/sheep/chickens etc) and so often unconsciously objectify them in their minds, as if they are merely machines, when in fact they are no different to the animals people love and recognise as being persons. There is no moral justification for why one species should be in one category or another, for there is no moral difference between any of the animal species we routinely love or exploit. It is simply speciesism. They are all sentient persons.
If you are upset by dogs/cats/guinea pigs/rabbits/horses being used and killed for the purposes of taste, vivisection, fashion or entertainment (which they all are), then you should be equally appalled by the use of cows/chickens/pigs/sheep/turkeys/ducks/fish or indeed any other animal. They are all individual persons who have interests in continuing to live and avoid suffering. In their sentience, they are no different to you or I. I'm sure you would not like to be subject to exploitation, torture and slaughter and neither do they. Whether you have close emotional bonds with other animals or not, you don't need to be an "animal lover" to recognise the moral implication of our shared sentience. As I don't need to love or have sentimental feelings towards someone to refrain from enslaving, raping, torturing or murdering them. It comes down to empathy and respect for others, no matter how you feel about them. This is something the British Public-and the human species as a whole-needs to realise. Animals are not simply "things" for us to use, and their value in not in simply how they can be used for our gain. Their moral value as sentient individual persons is inherent, as is the case for human persons.
Behaving Consistently With Our Own Values
It's obvious humans have very real and valid concern for non-humans animals. It's time to cut through the confusion. We must overcome the conditioning of the prejudices we were raised with and realise that animal use always and necessarily causes harm, suffering and a violation of personhood. It is unnecessary and morally unjustifiable violence.
If we are to behave consistently with our values of non-violence, justice and respect then we must stop regarding non-human animals as morally inferior beings who are simply resources to be used; and recognise their moral personhood. The very least we can each do is to live vegan. Vegans do not consume or use animals or animal products for any reason as far as it is possible to do. Veganism is a rejection of speciesism, it is a recognition that sentient persons should not be property. It is a moral position working towards the goal of legal rights for animals (to have their interests protected as a legal matter).
Living vegan is healthy*, easy and the right thing to do. It is necessary if we are to build a non-violent egalitarian society.
*Though some may have been raised to believe that consuming animal products such as flesh, dairy or eggs is necessary for health, this in fact is not the case (and again is largely down to marketing by people who want to profit from selling products). The FDA and British Dietetic Association agree that a vegan diet is adequate for all stages of life including childhood and pregnancy. Multiple scientific studies such as The China Study suggest that a plant-based diet is in fact healthier for humans and can help prevent or reverse diseases that have occurred partially or entirely because of a high consumption of animal products such as certain cases of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, osteoporosis and impotence. Animal exploitation is not a necessity, it is done simply for pleasure.
No comments:
Post a Comment