Assignent 2E (10B)

8/2/2019 Assignent 2E (10B)

1/6

Gastelum 1

Edgar Gastelum

WCWP 10B

Veronica Pear

17 August 2011

The Power of Interest

A current debate amongst philosophers is whether it should be permissible or impermissible to

use animals as a food source. This idea sparks many arguments amongst ethicists whether animals

should be given rights, moral protection or moral consideration. Eating meat is impermissible because

animals have interest; therefore, we should avoid meat. As humans, we need to understand that

animal's interests are just as valuable as human interest. The human perception of animals has been

construed by morality, industrialization, speciesm and tradition. Under morality, I will first discuss the

fundamental principle of equality and its importance for humans to consider animals as part of the

moral community. I will then explain how the meat industry disregards animal's interests regardless of

the process of making it. Then explain the concept of speciesm and its impact on humans to believe that

the mistreatment of animals is normal. Lastly, I will contradict an argument that the philosopher Michael

Fox imposes about the moral community.

An important reason why humans should not eat meat is that animals have interest. The

philosopher Peter Singer advocates for the principle of equality which "implies that our concern for

others out not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess...but rather equal

consideration of interest" (Singer 49). This principle focuses on the interest of all beings. "The capacity

for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interest at all" (Singer 50) In other words

under Singers definition of equality, as long as a being has interest in avoiding pain or gaining happiness

then they are candidates for moral equality. There is no reason why this equality should not extend to

"the interests of humans or non-human animals, self conscious or non-self-conscious animals" (Singer


2/6

Gastelum 2

65). Under this moral definition, there is no true justification that allows humans to eat meat. This is

because animals also feel pain and suffering just like humans. Since humans are interested in avoiding

pain and suffering then animals should also be given this right. Therefore, if animals have interests then

eating meat should be just as morally incorrect as eating another human. This is because humans should

respect the interest of all living things. The problem is that humans have not yet accepted the moral

code that considers animals as equals. As Michael Pollan states, "humans differ from animals in morally

significant ways" (Pollan 310). This idea would be true if Pollan were objecting to equal treatment but

the argument is equal consideration of interest. Of course animals cannot be treated in the same ways

as humans because we posses different characteristics such as intelligence and behavior. Nevertheless,

what animals and humans do share is the interest to avoid pain. Only because animals are different from

humans does not make it acceptable to exploit and slaughter these animals simply to enjoy its taste.

Animals also have an interest to live.

The interests of animals are overlooked in the meat industry. For example, the American factory

farms "are places where moral philosophy and animal cognition mean less than nothing" (Pollan 317).

Since these industries have no moral philosophy this easily explains the exploitation and immoral

treatment of farm animals. In a modern Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), animals are

treated as machines--production units--incapable of feeling pain. Industries such as CAFO's and other

farms that include those that promote "free range farming" both do not consider that animals undergo

pain and suffering during the production process. For example, cows in CAFO's or other farms are

castrated, branded, broken from their herds, separated from their mothers and young, live in their own

waste and ultimately slaughtered. These forms of suffering show no consideration of interest from the

farmers. It is clear that CAFO's ignore animals interest, but "many people soothe their conscience by

purchasing only free range meatignorant that free range has very little if any practical significance"

(Steiner 2). Steiner argues that what consumers do not understand is that pain and suffering inflicted


3/6

Gastelum 3

upon these animals regardless of how they are raised. Although the affliction is clear, "the uses of

animals are so institutionalized, so normalized, that in our society it is difficult to find the critical

distance needed to see them as horrors" (Steiner 2). In other words since the consumption of eating

meat has become such a custom in our society as consumers we neglect the awful treatment of these

animals. As expressed, there are countless reasons why we should not consume meat, but the only

reason that weighs against immorality is taste. The scale of morality seems unbalanced if taste is the

only factor that allows "53 billion land animals to be slaughtered every year for human

consumption"(Steiner 2). Pollan objects as he states, "my mouth still waters at the sight of a steak

cooked medium rare" (Pollan 314). Millions of Americans like Pollan simply consume meat for pleasure.

However, the pleasure that the human taste bud gets from a steak does not outweigh the suffering of a

cow at a CAFO. Hence, consumers should avoid the consumption of meat to end the exploitation of

animals and because of the unreasonable motive consumers have to eat meat.

Another reason why eating meat should be impermissible is to change the tradition of specieism

Animals are being neglected from a moral community that only considers humans. If the interests of

animals are being ignored then by not treating the animals, equally humans are considered as being

spiciest. A speceist is defined as "giving greater weight to the interests of those of our species" (Singer

52). This explains why humans feel that they can treat animals immorally because they feel superiority

over the animals. The lack of moral consideration of animals inclines humans to exclude these animals

as part of our moral community. The exclusion of animals is closely linked to racism. "Racism violates the

principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interest of their own race when there is a clash

between their interest and the interest of those of another race" (Pollan 51). The only difference

between racism and speciesm is the group that is being discriminated against. During times of slavery,

"America had no self-interested reason for treating blacks any better than they did. The blacks had no

way of retaliating" (Singer 70). Since blacks were seen as non-humans then it was perfectly acceptable


4/6


5/6

Gastelum 5

clear that the permissibility of meat is based on speciesm. Only because animals are not humans is not a

good argument to consume meat. It may be true that an animal is not as autonomous or complex as a

human is but that does not condone humans from acknowledging that animals also have interest.

Therefore, as humans we hold no acceptable reason to consume meat because although Fox believes

that only humans are granted moral right, consumers should stop eating meat to consider animals as

part of our moral circle and grant them the right to live.

Therefore, in conclusion humans should avoid eating meat because animals have interest. If

humans realized that, the interest of animals is just as valuable as a human then this would motivate

people to stop eating meat. However, the interest of animals is not being considered in society. Places

like industrial farms overlook the morality of mistreating and exploiting animals. People should not

consume meat to end the suffering and pain the animals go through. Nevertheless, this neglecting of the

animals pain and suffering is powered by the speciesm that lives amongst Americans. This speciesm

drives people like Michael Fox to believe that consuming meat is acceptable by ignoring animal's right to

be considered into our moral community. Therefore, under the moral umbrella of interest animals

should not have a fate of being on the plates of Americans.


6/6

Gastelum 6

Work Cited

Fox, Michael A. "The Moral Community." Web. 18 Aug. 2011.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2007.

Print.

Singer, Peter. "Equalities for Animals?" Web. 18 Aug. 2011.

Steiner, Gary. "Animal, Vegetable, Miserable." New York Times (2009). Web. June-July 2011.

Assignent 2E (10B)

Documents

Transcript of Assignent 2E (10B)