I am engaging Kirsten's commentary on whether or not eating animals is wrong based on the reasoning that they can feel pain. Kirsten disagrees with this comment on the basis that humans have eaten meat for thousands of years. However, she clarifies by saying that the treatment of many animals today is unethical and that by buying only from locally raised sources she can address this issue. This seems to me to be a consequential perspective on the situation. Kirsten knows that is she were to buy from brand name sources, she would be enabling the mistreatment of animals. Instead, by buying from somewhere that is certified organic, she is removing the moral consequence from her actions.
I think that this is an effective perspective for this particular situation, because it is also effective at dealing with the underlying issue. From a deontological point of view, if it was not someones intent to mistreat animals, it is not morally wrong to buy from factory farms. While this does remove the emotional burden from the individual, it does not solve the problem of the mistreatment of animals. Kirsten's consequential perspective leads to an individualized boycott of meat raised on factory farms, and when reproduced on a larger scale can have a significant economic impact that leads to changes in policy.
I think that this is an effective perspective for this particular situation, because it is also effective at dealing with the underlying issue. From a deontological point of view, if it was not someones intent to mistreat animals, it is not morally wrong to buy from factory farms. While this does remove the emotional burden from the individual, it does not solve the problem of the mistreatment of animals. Kirsten's consequential perspective leads to an individualized boycott of meat raised on factory farms, and when reproduced on a larger scale can have a significant economic impact that leads to changes in policy.
Kirsten talks about the livestock in her paper as having instrumental value. She talks about how factory farms arose due to our ever increasing desire for more meat products. However, if she described them as having intrinsic properties, her final argument would change from “buying locally” to going completely vegetarian. Even though she would be fighting for the animals in both cases, it would change the eventual outcome. An instrumental value system seems to be more effective in this argument, as the human need for nutrients from meat products becomes reasoning for her final conclusion. Although this does tend to lead to a more anthropocentric viewpoint.
I think that Kirsten's use of an anthropocentric viewpoint is useful in reaching her final conclusion. This allows her to find a happy medium in which the amount of animal pain is limited without causing any harm to humans. Without this anthropocentrism, animal abuse would certainly decline, but there may be significant damage caused to the development of the human species. My personal perspective takes aspects of consequentialism, with a ranking of organisms' value based on complexity, and this anthropocentrism coincides well without completely disregarding the rights of other species.
Overall, Kristen's moral perspective has very much been influenced by those around her and the concepts she has been exposed her. Both her father as a stringent meat-eater and her sister as a vegetarian lend to her different sets of values. This only strengthens her point of view further as she has reached a moral compromise between the two, instead of the extremes she has been exposed to.
I think a deontological point of view would apply here. I do not think the intent in question would be whether to to harm the animals or not, but rather what the intentions of the farms would be. For example, with factory farms, their intent is to produce as much meat as possible. However, with smaller organic farms, I do not believe producing as much meat as possible in order to turn a profit is their intent. I thought you made a very good point when you noticed the effectiveness of anthropocentrism in this argument. I also agree that if someone did not have any anthropocentric views upon this topic, more damage would be caused in the development of the human species.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a very accurate analysis. You did a great job exposing the underlying
ReplyDeletebeliefs in Kirsten's argument. I disagree with your statement regarding a decrease
in animal abuse if there was no anthropocentricism. I feel that although one has an anthropocentric view on an issue, it is one's instrumental values regarding that issue, object, organism, etc which play a larger role in their decisions.
So much of the morality when it comes to eating animals comes from people's knowledge about how they were killed/slaughtered. I feel that this is the basis for why people either think eating animals is okay or why they disagree with it completely. In fact some people can't get passed the slaughtering of animal, regardless of what methods are used and deem any method as inhumane. Animals eating other animals is part of the human food chain and it once again goes back to the idea of not interrupting nature and letting it play out as it was meant to play out.
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis of Kristen's argument to be very thorough and engaging. I agreed with your position that the fact that Kristen's disagreement with the statement stemmed from a consequential perspective. Kristen thought it moral to choose meat products from organic markets as opposed to those at a large supermarket because there is a less mistreatment of animals during the production stage. Choosing a more "ethical" way of meat production changes the consequence of how animals are to be treated. I thought your reasoning why Kristen's beliefs was not based on deontology was excellent. If it was not someone's intent to hurt an animal, then it wouldn't matter where they purchased his/her meat products.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that, "without this anthropocentrism, animal abuse would certainly decline, but there may be significant damage caused to the development of the human species." Although I understand your position, I would argue that animal abuse can still potentially decline with anthropocentrism. If someone's environmental ethics stemmed from anthropocentrism, they would believe that animals had a moral status as well because they have goal-based behaviors and can feel pleasure or pain. Having this belief may cause one to think twice about the way animals are treated, even during the meat production process, because animals are also a central feature of this world.
This post really got me thinking about what would happen if we actually all stopped eating animal products, and thus raising cows, pigs, chickens, sheep and goats? These animals would have very little natural environment left and as they been domesticated for so long and so many natural predators and literally no defenses...I think they would all rapidly become extinct. The predators who ate all this easy prey would be more numerous and more vicious and begin encroaching on humans, causing the eradication of further species. Regardless of whether or not it seems like it I believe our meat eating has become a part of our ecosystem and food chain that cannot simply disappear without rapidly altering the world around us.
ReplyDelete