From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Let them eat grass!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:48:01 GMT


Peter Westlake writes:
>The recent post on ethics by Ted Wayn
>Altar sums up this position rather well, along with the stronger
>position that it is wrong to deprive what he refers to as a
>"subject-of-a-life" of that life. Now consider: if you hold
>beliefs like this, what is wrong with killing and eating a higher
>animal: is it the fact that *you* do it (or it is done one your
>behalf),  or is it the consequential effects on the animal; and
>if the latter, then what does it matter to the animal who or what
>kills it?

Peter, this is a very interesting and thoughtful point!

Permit me to suggest that maybe the answer through this dilemma
is to reconsider the taken for granted bifurcation of subject and
object, or in this case, actor and the acted-upon.  To put it
briefly, we work through the horns of your dilemma by noting that
both the actor and the acted-upon form an inseparable co-
constituted unit.  Yes, we can distinguish the two, but with
respect to the ethical concern at hand, maybe we cannot separate
the two.

Consider the following question:  What would it mean for a hermit
to be civil or honest?  It would mean nothing since these are
qualities only effected in our interactions with others.  The
hermit who lives in isolation from other people is neither civil
nor honest with respect to others, as these are SOCIAL virtues.

Similarly, kindness, compassion or respect for subject-of-a-life
are social virtues in which it is beholden to Beings who are
capable of such virtues to exercise those virtues as they
interact with any "subjects" deserving or owed such kindness,
compassion or respect.  It is therefore a moral duty of "moral
beings" to exercise their moral capacities, but it is not a moral
duty for "non-moral beings" to exercise that which they are not
capable of realizing.  Thus, we have excusing conditions under
the law (e.g., insanity) when even a human being is not competent
to exercise moral conscience.

Ok, you would at least agree that the lions eating the zebra are
not morally culpable.  That humans, however, who do have the
choice to do otherwise, would be responsible or culpable for
their killing of non-human animals.  Indeed, this responsibility
would extent to even persuading or legally stopping other fellow
human beings from killing non-human animals.

Indeed, this might even extent to a consideration of the
behaviours of those animals in our care or under our ward.  Aside
from the ethics of keeping lions in zoos, one could ask if indeed
we should feed zoo lions meat if equally nutritionally healthy
and enjoyable vegetarian substitute was available.  I don't see
any reason why not.

But why would it be somewhat different to go futher and suggest
that there is even a moral duty to interfere with the
interactions of non-moral beings in the wild?

Consider for a moment that not only individuals, but even
collective "entities" may have, or at least be granted, "rights"
delimiting our actions respect to them, that such collectivities
can exact "duties" from us.  For example, the rights of a
"country", and in the U.S. I believe that even the flag has
certain "rights" of protection from say defilement or political
burning.  Now, what about an "ecosystem"?  If we are to expand
our concern from animals to ecosystems, some have argued that
even a collective but integral and intertwined biological SYSTEM
like a ecosystem, deserves some rights of protection and
preservation of its own integrity and even "beauty".  The
predator has its place as does the prey, and as we know, they
have an intertwined evolutionary history which has resulted in
the kind of species-being that they currently in fact ARE by
virtue of their predator-prey relationship.

Now, you might argue, even complete biosystems might one day be
amenable, and even cry out, for our complete intervention and
care.  Presently, these systems are far too complex and we
understand far too little about them to really venture any
drastic manipulations.  Indeed, our piecemeal surface
manipulations have all too often had unforeseen consequences and
even been disastrous failures.  But should the day come when it
might be possible for us to play "god", and knowingly direct the
evolution of biosystems with complete control, then we might well
be have to deal with your question.  But a necessary skepticism
and judicious exercise of extreme caution will delay that day
even further.

But let us say that indeed that fateful day arrives.  We have the
means, and maybe the rationale of some advantage, to convert
lions into grazers.  Would some other ethical concerns obtain to
prevent or delimit such an action on our part?  Possibly a value
of preserving something outside our control and manipulation
might be one such value.  The inherent value of a predator-prey
relationship and the evolutionary press that such a relationship
holds may be another value.

But let us say that no such intervening values are sufficient to
delimit our interest in converting lions into grazers.  Aside
from the hubris of presuming what our future predecessors might
view as important or not, I must admit to seeing no reason why
such a human intervention into the natural world would be prima
facie wrong.


>What difference does it make to the cow whether it is
>killed by the butcher or the lion?

I would guess that it does make a difference, given the quite
different conditions of factory farming and living in the wild.
Cows,


>Any of us in the cow's place
>would consider the distinction unimportant compared to the danger
>of a violent death.


What would a cow choose if a cow had a choice?   What if the
choice were one of living in the wild where an untimely death is
highly possible versus the certain death after only having lived
1/4 to 1/5 of its potential lifespan corralled in conditions
where branding, dehorning, castration and overcrowding are the
norm.  I think we can sensibly guess what the choice might be.  A
really nice book that artistically captures this contrast is the
Australian novel, MAN SHY by Frank Davison, MAN-SHY, 1931.  [this
is a moving story of range cows that provides a lot of
interesting information about the rich, sentient but tragic lives
of cows.  Was awarded the Australian Literature Society's gold
medal for best Australian novel
published in 1931].  I highly recommend it


                         Happy Holiday Season,
                                   ted



Newsgroups: rec.food.veg