Should We all become Vegetarians - Essay Example

Should We all become Vegetarians? –A Critical Interpretation In his article, “The Animal Liberation Movement”, Singer argues that our treatment of non-human animals is deeply and morally objectionable. It is wrong to kill and eat animals. We cannot possibly justify doing so. We should therefore all become vegetarians (or preferably vegans). Singer essentially attempts to justify his claim on different philosophical and logical grounds. He argues that “Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact” (Singer pars.2). He further says that the issue of animal liberation does not depend on whether the animals can reason or converse; rather it should take the question, into consideration, whether they suffer or not. In this regard, Singer refers to Jeremy Bentham: “the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk but, Can they suffer?” (Singer, 1985, pars. 5) But here Singer’s position is deeply objectionable as well as debatable. For the sake of humanity, animals deserve kindness and sympathy from humans; but for the same reason, a man should have the right to kill an animal and to live on its meat. If the humankind is sacked off the right to live on the flesh of other animals, it will be the sheer violation of the natural law. It is something like imposing ban on a lion’s right to live on the flesh of buffalos. As far as Singer argues that humans should stop cruelty against nonhumans, it is good for the whole mankind. But when he advises that mankind should stop eating meat or flesh, he advocates the violations of the laws of nature. It is right that animals also suffer and, therefore, humans should not inflict sufferings on them. But what should a man do, if the sufferings (or killing) of an animal can save the lives of millions? Or if the sufferings of animals can make millions of lives easy in a severe life condition? In such case, a man should do what a lion naturally does. Lions cannot live on grass because of its biological features. So, they need to kill sheep or buffalos for the sake of living. If considered in the context of natural food chain, man, by dint of reasoning power and intellect, occupies the top position. Because of superior intellect, man has adopted the survival-capability by eating both meat and vegetable. In the food, man is the only eater who can grow their foods. So, growing and killing animals for foods are humans’ natural ability to survive in their surroundings. This ability of man to kill animals and consume animal-flesh is as natural as a lion’s right to live on flesh. Therefore, Singer’s proposition that all modern men should be vegetarian is grossly flawed. It is because there are places on this earth where living on meat is the only condition of survival. In his article, Singer says, “We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish” (Singer, 1985, pars. 6). Here he says that man eats meat only for taste. But he has failed to consider a broader context of eating meat. He further claims that since vegetables can provide all the nutritional food-values, there is no reason to kill and eat animal. Debates on animal experimentation often focus on the capability of animals to be sentient and to feel pain as proofs of their rights whether to be or not to be slain on the scientist’s table. Though animal’s ability to feel pain is an anonymously acknowledged matter of fact, their sentience is often disputed. Since man is intellectually superior to other carnivores, humans’ approach to nonhuman animals as source of food and protein is different from other carnivorous animals such as lions, tigers, cats, etc. The difference between these carnivores and man is: whereas man can feel the sufferings of his victims, others cannot. There is another basic difference also. Man can destroy more animals than what he needs as food. But a lion’s or other carnivores’ ability to kill other animals for food is very limited. Therefore, a lion’s act of killing animal is not malicious to the environment and the ecosystem. So, a man should refrain himself from torturing and killing animals unnecessarily. Referring to man’s natural guardianship over other nonhuman animals, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1754) says, …it is clear that, being destitute of intelligence and liberty, they cannot recognize that law; as they partake, however, in some measure of our nature, in consequence of the sensibility with which they are endowed, they ought to partake of natural right; so that mankind is subjected to a kind of obligation even toward the brutes. (p. 45) If it is possible for a man to survive without meat, he should not kill animals and eat flesh. But it should not be a universal rule that all men should become vegetarians. The question of being a vegetarian should be based on a utilitarian perspective. If killing or torturing an animal is not good for humanity, man should stop killing and eating. Indeed, he should refrain from such acts as much as possible. In order to gratify taste, man should not kill animals. But for survival killing can be assumed right and natural. Since man belongs to the natural food-web, man has the right to kill and eat animals. But unnecessary killing and torturing is not acceptable in any way. Singer has argued against killing and eating animal on the ground that animals also suffer from pain. In fact this philosophy of suffering is not enough to defend the animal liberationists. They argue that man should not kill and eat animals because they suffer. So, all men should be vegetarian and start eating vegetables as much as they can. But how can Singer as well as other liberationists guarantee that plants and trees do not suffer when they are killed. Often Singer compares between a horse and a baby. He questions whether it is right to kill a baby (or a horse) just because it does not have the ability to reason. He later argues that it is wrong to kill both a horse and a baby because both of them feel pain, as he says, “if we consider it wrong to inflict that much pain on a baby for no good reason then we must…consider it equally wrong to inflict the same amount of pain on a horse for no good reason” (Singer, 1985, pars. 8). Modern sciences claim that plants also feel pain; but man cannot feel their pains and sufferings. Should man stop eating vegetables? In fact, man, animal and plant, together, form a larger ecosystem in which all the three stay harmoniously through an inter-depended relationship. In this eco-food-chain, one specie’s dependence on other species is so normal and natural. Therefore, killing and eating animal is nothing wrong when the question of survival is the main concern. But reckless and thoughtless killing and eating animals is always harmful. In fact, the question is: what rights should animals have? A straightforward answer is not possible. The assertion that man cannot enslave or kill animals for meat is indeed the violation of man’s natural right. This statement is something like ruling out a lion from killing a sheep or buffalo. On the other hand, the assertion that animals do not have any right is also pointless and detrimental to both man and animal. It is true that the debate on animal rights should not be determined on an animal’s possession of intellect and consciousness. Indeed, animals should have the rights not to suffer pain, unless this right causes man’s sufferings. The question whether animals should have rights is one of the most debated topics in modern age. Scholars have failed to reach any unanimous conclusion. Anyway, while deciding whether animals should rights or not, the debaters mainly focus on several factors such as animal ability to learn, to use language, the level of their consciousness, their ability to feel pain, etc. Obviously animals’ rights should be considered in relation to human beings’ welfare of betterment. Probably, purely ethical perspectives will never be able to reach any unanimous conclusion. References Rousseau, J. J. (1754). Discourse on Inequality. Retrieved April 02, 2013 from http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_02.htm Singer, P. (1985). The Animal Liberation Movement. Retrieved March 02, 2014 from http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html Read More