The unjustness of exploiting animals

Confining, inflicting pain on or killing animals is unjust and unfair

Confining, inflicting pain on or killing animals, when unnecessary, is unjust and unfair. I consider practices causing this to be examples of exploitation.

You wouldn't want these same things happening to you, so don't do it to them.

The Golden Rule

Does this reasoning sound familiar? It sure echoes the Golden rule, as found in Matthew 7:12:

Do to others what you want them to do to you.

It is also found in other traditions, like in the Buddhist text Dhammapada verses 129 (and 130): 

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

Historical differences between Eastern and Western traditions

Now, in "Indian" or Eastern religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, it has been common to include animals in that equation. While most adherents of Buddhism, and maybe also Hinduism, actually eat meat, many do not, and the topic of meat eating and killing of animals has been discussed for thousands of years. 

However, although there has been exceptions, in Western culture the separation between human and other animals has mostly been assumed or taken for granted. Humans on the one hand, belong to one category, and animals to another. 

Discrimination and prejudice

Often, both in the West and the East, the human category has been split up into a hierarchy with some humans being considered of higher worth than others. The humans considered inferior, curiously, have often been described as animals or given animal-like characteristics. Inferior humans are beast-like, driven by instinct, they are irrational, they are primitive, uncivilized (civilization is a human construct) and so forth. In short, they are given labels associated with non-human animals. Now, these groups of people are of course non-whites, women, sexual minorities, slaves, religious and ethnic minorities as well as people who just don't conform to society's standards. 

At its most base level, discrimination of any of these groups, are justified simply by pointing to the group's distinctiveness. The argument is that discrimination, or differential treatment, is justified because the person discriminated against is, as an example, black. 

Assuming privilege

By promoting standards one can easily adapt to oneself, or already shares, one tries to assume privilege, consciously or subconsciously. If white, heterosexual men are considered the best of the best, one gets a lot for free simply by coincidentally being a white, heterosexual man. If one promotes the white, heterosexual man as the ideal being, one is partial and promoting one's own image. If one considers the interests of the human more important than the identitical interests of the non-human animal, just because the human is human, one discriminates in favor of oneself and one's own group.

Philosopher Mark Rowlands writes: "the species to which you belong is not something over which you have any control: it is not, that is, something for which you are in any way responsible. So, therefore, species is morally irrelevant" (from Animals Like Us 2002, page 53). Discrimination based on species membership has a name: Speciesism. 

The Contractarian Approach to Animal Ethics

Philosopher Mark Rowlands has carried John Rawls' thought experiment of The veil of Ignorance, or the Impartial Position, further. In his great book, Animals Like Us, Mark Rowlands presents the contractarian approach to animal ethics. I would highly recommend it as one of the best books I've read on the subject. The contractarian approach presented is highly practical and possible to follow. He also presents several examples of the actual exploitation and suppression of animals today. Also, he delivers a great elaboration on the problem of killing and death, in general. 

What I present here is based on Rowlands' argument, though I can't possibly do justice to his wonderful book, that you should all be reading instead of this blogpost. 

The Impartial Position

Imagine you are not born yet. 

You are hovering in space, looking down on earth, waiting to be born. 

You don't know who you will be. You only know you will be sentient. You will live, and you will feel pain and pleasure. You could become a human engineer or a teacher. You could be male, or you could be female. 

You could become a cat, a pig or even a cow. Actually, nothing stops you from being born as a fish or an insect. 

As you contemplate this, an angel appears with a blank book for you to fill in.

Now you are given the chance to choose which rules should apply to this world, how human and non-human animals should behave towards one another. You will write them into the book, and the book shall be law.

Remember, this law shall apply to all who are able to follow and understand the law. Everyone who can understand will, in this thought experiment, do so. 

After writing down the law, you will be born into the world. A random animal form will be given to you. Maybe you will become a chicken, a hen or a cow. 

Would you choose a world where you might live your whole, but short, life in a cage for then being slaughtered? Would you choose a world where human animals could hold non-human animals captive, if that animal were you? Would you choose a world were animals are used for unnecessary experimentation for new cosmetic products?

Or, would you choose a world in which there was no killing, no captivity and no inflicting of suffering for needless reasons? 

Remember what you chose. 

A person constructing a system in which he himself could be tortured and killed, would be an irrational, self-defeating person. Now, in this thought experiment, what is irrational in the Impartial Position, is unjust and immoral in real life, as not following one's own rules would be having a double standard. 

If you are now human, breaking the rules you made, why do you? 

_________

The intention of this blogpost is to present one of many arguments for taking animals' interests into account, as well as to make my readers aware of Rowlands' book Animals Like Us, which was a great inspiration for me. Also, presenting the argument here, I can refer to this blogpost in the future, hopefully making future blogposts shorter. There have been some months since I read this book in entirety, so I apologize if there is any error. I am trying to convey what I take to be the essence of this position, not a summary of the book. 

__________

You can buy Mark Rowlands' book on Amazon.com, 

For Norwegian readers, you could also get it on the online store Adlibris.no. 

I thank my flu

I was about to write that I love my flu, but that would be an exaggeration. My nose keeps running. I have red spots under my nostrils. I'm tired from not sleeping well due to waking up with bouts of uncontrolled coughing. My throat feels like sun-dried cardboard. Still, I thank my flu.

Health anxiety

I thank my flu because I used to have severe health anxiety. Now I don't. I don't have it anymore. When I cough, even though my back hurts, I don't expect my ribs to crack. I know it's just a flu. I know it will pass.

Though I wouldn't wish severe health anxiety upon anyone, I learned something from that period of my life. I learned how it feels to fear for one's life. I know how it feels to be frightened when noone sess or understands why, when the cause is invisible. That period made it easier for me to empathize with old or sick people, and it made me appreciate being alive and making the most out of it.

After having recovered from my health anxiety, I soon faced a challenge when I got some kind of food poisoning and fever. Deciding it should not freak me out, I decided to watch my feverish condition with interest. Okay, so I have a fever. Interesting. Now how does this feel? Okay, so I had an uncomfortable dream. It was different. It was exceptional. It was unique. It will never return again. What can I learn from it? I came through without problem. I wasn't scared.

Lessons from Nietzsche and the Buddha

What had changed? Well, first of all my outlook. Instead of believing the point of life was to be always happy, hedonistically understood, I started believing it was about developing myself and living my life. To exist is to live one's own exceptional story, including living through one's own particular pain or discomfort. Now, the psychological component of suffering almost disappears when one watches one's physical suffering with the eyes of a scientist, with interest. With mindfulness. I had come to believe what Nietzsche said: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger".

Nietzsche also wrote: "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering". I agree wholeheartedly. Amor fati. Love your destiny, embrace your history, your biography.

Now, this parallells the Buddhist teachings of the inevitability of suffering, of aging, sickness and death. However, instead of seeing the suffering as a problem in itself, Nietzsche saw it as a tool for hardening oneself and growing. I side with Nietzsche, although relieving the suffering that can be relieved, should be done. If not for anything else, than so in order to free the individual from the disability caused by agony. However, also the Buddha taught that everything is transient, nothing remains. Nothing is stationary. Reality is a process, not an essence.

Learning from my flu

Now I'm in the process of having a flu. So what can I take from it?

Yesterday I was on a train that was almost completely full. Accordingly, I was sitting next to another person, which in Norway, one does not do voluntarily unless one is intoxicated or has a psychiatric disease. Now I was coughing uncontrallaby, and had to sneeze repeatedly, though less often than I had to blow my nose. Not having napkins I kept having to go fetch paper from the bathroom or "tea section". Sitting next to the window, I felt like quite a nuisance to the guy I was sat next to. In short, I felt a bit shameful. Why? Because I felt weak? Because illness is disgusting? What norm does that reflect? Why should it be shameful to be sick? Now, this is something to reflect on. Which I wouldn't have if I wasn't exposed to that situation.

I discovered that when walking fast, or normally, I had to cough more. Thus I needed to walk at a slow pace. This made slightly impatient because I consider it a waste of time. So I am aware of that now. Also, I felt a bit annoyed when people were rushing past me on the bus when I was paying for my ticket. I felt slightly envious of the healthy people, and thought they were disrespectful not to wait in line till I had paid my ticket. Now, my flu is transient. It will pass. In a few days I will be among the rushing people again. However, some people have permanent health problems. They have to live with a slowed pace everyday. Although a flu is a flu, being sick in general will help you relate to other people being sick. Thus, the experience enables me to understand others' experiences a bit better, if never perfect. This enables bonding between me and them.

Today I slept at day time. I never do that. I did it because I felt I had to. Having the flu also makes me more generous with myself. I don't expect myself to make big dinners, being social or sleeping at regular hours. It's a state of exception. It disrupts the daily routine. Disrupting the daily routine is good. Then one sees that the world doesn't end by breaking the habit.

Still, I don't love my flu. I look forward to getting rid of it. I look forward to being a rusher again. Then I'll be thankful for being healthy.

Benches and river of Tartu

The benches of Tartu, solidly parked in historical atmosphere, and - at least for the time being - rays of sunlight, are perfect for intellectual conversation. If you furthermore add the fact that Estonia is considered the world´s freest country according to some, you easily feel free to let your thoughts run wherever you want them too, or, if you - like me - sometimes like to focus them in meditation, you´re most welcome.

Tartu is a quite small city, by world standards, although perhaps not by Nordic ones, having a population of approximately 100.000 people (a little bit more). Being most of all a student city, the population is young, and it´s quite easy to get by using English. Even though you can also here find young "gangstas" which are high on themselves, there are less of them than in Oslo or Vilnius, at least if my eyes tell the truth, and this might perhaps be because of education.

When I was first in Estonia in 2007 I was struck by the landscapes. Not the landscapes I saw with my own eyes, but the one I saw on the cover of a history book I bought, for example. This means fields with lonely, big trees I cannot tell the names of. Of course, it is tempting to sit down meditating there. If you add the pleasant weather, the ponds, the river, the sound of the crickets, the birds´ singing and the open spaces, you´d understand what I mean. Luckily, these are the landscapes around Tartu.

The Emajõgi river is a midsized river running through town, and connecting the big lakes Peipsi and Vörtsjärv. When sitting peacefully on a bench by the lazy river you can see the fish jumping. This means that you also can see people fishing. On each side of the river, except from in the city center, there is an abundance of trees. I honestly can´t tell the names, but it looks very nice.

Even though Buddhism isn´t thriving in Estonia, the Dalai Lama just visited Tallinn, and was met by thousands of people. Here in Tartu I could see an exhibition in the public library, which, as I understood, was dedicated to Tibet, Dalai Lama and (Tibetan) Buddhism. I am very glad Estonian politician dare standing up to Chinese pressure. There wouldn´t be any politics if they didn´t have consequences, and good consequences usually follow good intentions. Suppressing freedom of thought out of shortsighted economical gains, will not give good results in the long run.

I´ve been happy these days.

History is no jumping clown

Not even a mountain stands unchanged through the ages. No beautiful piece of architecture has stood unscattered through millennia. If you´ve read just a little bit of history you should also know that our societies have been even less permanent.

However - certain ideologies seem to want preservation of some kind of old order, usually what is perceived to be national culture, though not the present culture, but some kind of culture, perceived to have existed, maybe 50 years ago, maybe 20, or perhaps in the Middle Ages. Sadly, these opinions are quite often based on ideology, and not on careful historical studies. This means that this society often is halfway myth.

I say history is no jumping clown. History is a string of causally linked events. The Hungarian writer Imre Kertész, seems to mean that even Holocaust was in this sense, natural, because it was created from the upleading events, and can therefore not be written out of history as exceptional or unnatural. That doesn´t mean it is justified, of course.

In my opinion, dividing history into confined boxes, with breathing space between major events and eras, is nothing but propaganda and lies. There is no action that is taken out of context. Belief in such an action is like belief in divine manifestations. Simply, they are religious beliefs.

Every action leads to a result. This conclusion might seem basic, but the implications are not always taken into consideration.

Sometimes, it might seem like something is forced upon you from outside. This perception is often amplified by emotions. If someone you know has been unjustly murdered, you might find it hard to explain the event casually. A causal explanation might sometimes seem like justification. However, reality is constituted by causality, and looking a way from this fact is not honest.

If we were clearsighted enough, history wouldn´t really bring many surprises. We would be able to see the consequences of our actions before we made them. Thus we might have avoided wrongdoing. However - we are not there.

The view that today´s order is unnatural is wrong. Today´s situation has been created by yesterday´s steps and also by the actions in the era that nationalists and other ideologues want to go back to. However, the elements of the period they long for obviously carried the seeds of today´s flowers. In a way, also every view is in a way natural, nobody´s placed it from outside in a mind while the person was sleeping. It has evolved. It might be a wrong view, in the way that it is not correct. It is irrational and it is not explaining reality, but twisting it. However, it didn´t come about unnaturally, or if you want - supernaturally.

History is like a path in a forest, or a road. You walk and you drive, but if you want to return, you´ll also walk and drive. History is no jumping clown, you have no menu of histories to choose from. And even if you had, you would have to be realistic enough to see that once you´d eaten your stuff it´d be gone, even though it would still impact your body.

Let´s look at this on an individual level.

In secondary school I remember discussing a difficult topic. We were talking about rape. I think the class was trying to discuss what caused a person to do such unjustice to someone else. I raised my hand and started explaining my idea. As soon as I mentioned the words "upbringing" and "parents", my teacher began stomping on the floor: "you must never, ever, ever say that", she said. I never got to say what I meant. I meant that everything you do, everything you experience leads to the one moment you are in right now. You cannot exclude parts of it totally. You can pick out the most important, but chances are always you didn´t see correctly.

In a Norwegian nationalist´s view I might be doing something unnatural in being a Buddhist, or by living in another country. However, it is not unnatural. Truth is, I wouldn´t be a Buddhist if not my history, my life, and my environment had led me there. There was no supernatural injection. Something in Buddhism appealed to me, and if it did so, it was natural, because the path before that choice led me there. What would not be natural was to teleport back to birth and freeze myself at that stage of development. Like that is it also with society. What happens now is perfectly natural, and what happened before was perfectly natural. That doesn´t mean it is good, but it is not against nature. Everything that exists is natural. Again, everything that exists is not good.

Sadly, some people seem to claim that one state of society is natural and another not. Therefore, every action that leads toward natural society is okay. Again, the assumption is wrong.

What exists, exists. Of course, that doesn´t mean it is impossible to create something similar to a medieval society again. But also that will be built on choices.

To sum up, I´d say there is no essence, only progression or development. There is no object, but there is a process.

http://www.vl.no/samfunn/article139784.zrm
http://www.vl.no/samfunn/article139694.zrm