Environmental Ethics: Animals and Us

Most of us would say we love animals. So why is there a contradiction between concern for the well being of animals and the increasing mistreatment of animals? The distinction between human and non-human species seems to forget that we are all animals. Peter Singer (1975) raises the issue that the history of the treatment of non-human species has been dominated by speciesism attitudes (the belief in the inherent superiority of the human species over other species), and it is difficult to conclude that it is much different today. If the ethics of a society can be measured in how we treat other beings, then based on the treatment of animals for food production human society does not fare well.

Proponents for speciesism believe that the justification of superiority is based on the human ability to think rationally, and other characteristics such as self-consciousness, oral language or sense of justice. However, it could be argued that not all characteristics are possessed by all, and only, human beings and if characteristics, like the capability of feeling pain is included, than non-human animals cannot selectively be inseparable from humans. As rational beings, shouldn’t we show compassion and nurture other species as stewards of the Earth or, in the case of animal ethics, is it the lack of emotion that leads to a behaviour that goes against reason?

Progress in the treatment of animals remains questionable. At most chickens will be guaranteed room to spread their wings but will still lack the freedom to engage in natural behaviours like foraging and nesting. Most will never know sunlight, breezes, plants or soil. There are many cases worldwide of faulty practices that do not result in acceptable living conditions for animals or how they are slaughtered. Modern industrialised agriculture has undermined the ancestral relationship a farmer has with animals and the earth but organic and free-range farming re-introduces good animal husbandry practices which promotes sustainability and animal welfare. But there is still much room for improvement in the company profit driven food industry.

For animal ethics to evolve under the auspices of their ‘use’ rather than intrinsic value, than we must acknowledge the health benefits of animal companionship – physical and emotional comfort for people; reducing stress, loneliness, grief, fear and pain (Deliz 2008). They also have a vital role in ecosystem function and processes where the removal of key stone species imbalances the system and pollinators are critical for crop production and biodiversity. Perhaps it would be better to think of animal ethics as ‘animal equality’ because it encompasses all the internal differences among the various philosophies and organisations who are, after all, fighting for the very same cause (Aldo 2010) and it also removes the dogma of speciesism.

At what point can we advance as a society when the search for equality with the environment cannot be uniformly conceded by all cultures? What does this say about humanity? It appears that there are more questions than answers. What cannot be denied is that concern for animals teaches respect for the sanctity of life. Therefore the ethics of a society is one that evolves; when one strives for betterment means it is no longer acceptable to cause suffering to others, including non-humans, in the process.

References:

Aldo., L. (2010). ‘The Land Ethic’. In: A World of Ideas. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford Publishing 748-764.

Deliz., A. (2008). ‘Therapy Animals: How Animals Affect the Elderly, the Sick and the Abused.’ Suite 101. Available (Online): http://www.suite101.com/content/therapy-animals-a67173.

Singer., P. (1975). ‘Man’s Dominion: a short history of speciesism’. In: Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Jonathon Cape: London: 133-152.

Image courtesy of Ashley Cox / FreeDigitalPhotos.net