A few weeks back, one of my teachers asked the class to make a five-minute PowerPoint Presentation on any topic of our choice. I chose to address a question which has long intrigued several people around me, including my classmates: “Why am I vegan?”
I thought long and hard on how I should present my views on the subject. I finally decided that my presentation would consist of pictures of factory-farmed animals being ill-treated. The presentation was appreciated by everyone but, in reality, those pictures barely account for my being vegan. Make no mistake, the depravity of the manner in which animals are treated on farms does disturb me. But my convictions about vegetarianism are rooted in a larger moral framework, one which recognizes the rights of all forms of substantial intelligence, including animals.
I was recently discussing animals’ rights with my friend, who remarked, “Rights? They are just animals for god’s sake!”
His remark that they were just animals revealed a common attitude held towards animals. Many people see animals as no different from other resources which can be harnessed for human use. They do understand the concept of rights, but this word for them, applies only to humans. I wonder if these people have thought through the concept of human rights at all. Are these rights given to humans, simply because they possess the “form” of humans?
Today, most people have a decent understanding of human rights. We generally deem it to be important for all humans, irrespective of age, race and nationality. This is because we realize that we share certain aspects that we value most in ourselves, with all other humans. These aspects include the singularness, or “individuality” which we can sense about ourselves. They include our consciousness, which helps us distinguish ourselves from our environment and understand our surroundings. Most importantly, they include our emotions, which characterize our daily lives.
Thus human life is assigned a “worth,” an importance, on the basis of these factors. But come to think of it, these are possessed by animals other than humans as well, though perhaps to a slightly lesser degree. Sure, they look different from us and they speak a different language, but are they really that different? Scientists today have concluded that animals as small as chickens possess not only a consciousness by which they distinguish themselves from their environment, but that they also experience a gamut of emotions similar to the one which we experience, which includes pain, fear and hatred. As these animals also possess those very aspects to which we assign worth and sanctity, are they not entitled to some rights too? Or do we simply deny them these rights because they look different from us? Are rights to be acknowledged on the basis of how beings look from the outside? Or are they to be acknowledged on the basis of how they feel on the inside?
Another common argument against vegetarianism is that humans appear to be omnivores and that they have long relied on the consumption of meat for sustenance. While this assertion is true, it discounts the physical, spiritual, emotional and most importantly intellectual evolution that humans have undergone in the past few millennia.
20,000 years ago, people did rely primarily on the flesh of other animals for nutrition, but that was a different type of person, who probably did not have an explicit understanding of sophisticated concepts such as “rights.”
Today, we consider ourselves to be rational and conscientious beings. We do not attribute respect merely to our own whims and instincts, but we are sensitive to the environment, to other beings. Thus, I do not expect an omnivorous animal such as a bear to stop consuming meat. But I do believe that a human who claims to understand concepts such as democracy and human rights, must recognize the right to life of animals on at least some level.
A consequentialist would argue that acknowledging even basic rights to animals, such as the right to life and habitat, is a waste of time. These people see rights as a purely functional concept. To them, concepts such as human rights are made simply to maintain some amount of order in humanity. Their logic of justifying human rights would be as follows: we must respect the rights of others because if we do not, they will revolt against us.
Thus, a consequentialist would conclude that this is not applicable to animals, as an “Animal Farm” situation (where animals revolt against humans) is not likely to happen.
But such reasoning is myopic. History itself has been testament to the fact that such consequentialist ethics only lead to perverted reasoning. Several wars have been fought on the principle that human life is dispensable for what has been perceived to be larger causes.
Imagine, if we were to value the life of animals, would we not value the life of humans all the more? If concern for life, for feelings, for pain, is shown for beings physically different from us, would we not show even more concern for beings like us? In my opinion, a kind of sensitivity to pain and agony experienced by all thinking, feeling beings universally, is what could bring lasting peace in this world.
Thus, if slaughter of animals is considered wrong under all conditions, would slaughter of humans too not be considered unacceptable under all conditions? Thus, even by consquentialist logic, I propose that it can be justified that kindness to animals is likely to create a more cohesive, peaceful humanity.
Print this post [1]
[2]