There’s similar aspects here to Tom Regan’s argument against killing animals in The Case For Animal Rights.
Here’s a quote from the summary of chapter three:
“When we recognize that harms can take the form of deprivations, we are able to understand why death is a harm, when it is. Death is the ultimate, the irreversible harm because death is the ultimate, the irreversible loss, foreclosing every opportunity to find any satisfaction. This is true whether death is slow and agonizing or quick and painless. Though there are some fates worse than death, an untimely death is not in the interests of its victims, whether human or animal, independently of whether they understand their own mortality, and thus independently of whether they themselves have a desire to continue to live. Though young children, like animals of comparable mental development, arguably lack any conception of their long-term welfare, lack the ability to formulate categorical desires, and lack any sense of their own mortality, the untimely death of either is a harm. To attempt to avoid this finding by requiring that death must be ‘tragic’ in order to be a harm or misfortune, is to distort rather than to illuminate when and why death is the harm or misfortune that it is. Moreover, because the harm that an untimely death, viewed as a loss, is for any given individual is independent of the pain involved in dying, the ethical questions concerning, for example, the slaughter of animals for food and their use in science are not limited to how ‘humane’ are the methods used to kill them. When these questions are examined, the ethics of causing animals an untimely death must also be considered.”
My tendency these days, is to think about animal treatment as a contract with a non-culpable party. Like having a child sign.
The only way it can be ethical is if the contract is, beyond all reasonable doubt, leaning towards their favour. In other words, if they were capable, they would sign.
E.g. would a chicken, raised in the woods, being treated fairly and without cruelty, with no males being killed (e.g. rescue chickens) as part of the economical incentive of their being there, be providing ethical eggs?
I would say yes. (This is me trying to justify how it may be possible to eat eggs after years of veganism, make of that what you will).
Another example, leaning more heavily on the "loss through deprivation of life span" would be a killing towards end of life during extreme senescence caused pain. Any benefit (meat / leather) derived thereafter would also be ethical.
I've tried for years of being vegan to justify not being vegan and these are the only kinds of "clean" options I can come up with. Certainly far away from the bulk of consumption practices...
Thanks for the comment. I suppose I view the treatment of animals in a more rights-based fashion, and that using them in almost all ways seems somewhat morally suspicious. I've written a much longer article that touches on this point if you're interested called 'Things, Ends, and Animals'.
My contention is whether, even if animals would consent to some treatment in some possible world in which they possess such capacities, that it wouldn't necessarily equate to ethical treatment. Much like how I would 'consent' to someone exploiting my labour (such as not paying me anything) if it meant I was able to escape living on the streets during winter. But I don't think this sort of consent looks to be what we're looking for regarding what we owe to others. It may be instead that we owe it to animals who show themselves to us and need our help are owed such help–and they don't owe us anything for that (provided we're talking about what our obligations are).
Things like ethically sourced eggs are far and few between in my view. I don't think it permissible to have chickens to use them for getting eggs–that seems disrespectful. However if we just found an egg on the ground (no chick inside) then I hardly see an issue eating it. Though I would say something different for dead bodies as it seems to me that there is respect owed to the dead.
Regarding the killing at the end of their life, it will depend on what makes killing wrong (or perhaps different forms of exploitation wrong). I think that if a chicken still has a good day left to live (say they're old) then I still think killing them would rob them of that future. It becomes clear that killing them might be called for if they, for instance, are in agony because of this old age. But I think the appropriate intention here isn't to see an opportunity to get some meat, but rather that killing this chicken would be the best thing for them (assuming euthanasia is a real thing–which I do). I also speak a little about this in the article I mentioned prior. Link here btw: https://open.substack.com/pub/theperse/p/things-ends-and-animals?r=2o78nc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Awesome to hear you're vegan btw. I think what most concerns me is the less complex areas such as blatant animal exploitation, torture and murder, as opposed to cases of taking care of chickens until they die naturally, but still taking their eggs. Those things still concern me, but it's much less.
There’s similar aspects here to Tom Regan’s argument against killing animals in The Case For Animal Rights.
Here’s a quote from the summary of chapter three:
“When we recognize that harms can take the form of deprivations, we are able to understand why death is a harm, when it is. Death is the ultimate, the irreversible harm because death is the ultimate, the irreversible loss, foreclosing every opportunity to find any satisfaction. This is true whether death is slow and agonizing or quick and painless. Though there are some fates worse than death, an untimely death is not in the interests of its victims, whether human or animal, independently of whether they understand their own mortality, and thus independently of whether they themselves have a desire to continue to live. Though young children, like animals of comparable mental development, arguably lack any conception of their long-term welfare, lack the ability to formulate categorical desires, and lack any sense of their own mortality, the untimely death of either is a harm. To attempt to avoid this finding by requiring that death must be ‘tragic’ in order to be a harm or misfortune, is to distort rather than to illuminate when and why death is the harm or misfortune that it is. Moreover, because the harm that an untimely death, viewed as a loss, is for any given individual is independent of the pain involved in dying, the ethical questions concerning, for example, the slaughter of animals for food and their use in science are not limited to how ‘humane’ are the methods used to kill them. When these questions are examined, the ethics of causing animals an untimely death must also be considered.”
It’s a shame more people don’t read Regan’s work.
My tendency these days, is to think about animal treatment as a contract with a non-culpable party. Like having a child sign.
The only way it can be ethical is if the contract is, beyond all reasonable doubt, leaning towards their favour. In other words, if they were capable, they would sign.
E.g. would a chicken, raised in the woods, being treated fairly and without cruelty, with no males being killed (e.g. rescue chickens) as part of the economical incentive of their being there, be providing ethical eggs?
I would say yes. (This is me trying to justify how it may be possible to eat eggs after years of veganism, make of that what you will).
Another example, leaning more heavily on the "loss through deprivation of life span" would be a killing towards end of life during extreme senescence caused pain. Any benefit (meat / leather) derived thereafter would also be ethical.
I've tried for years of being vegan to justify not being vegan and these are the only kinds of "clean" options I can come up with. Certainly far away from the bulk of consumption practices...
Thanks for the comment. I suppose I view the treatment of animals in a more rights-based fashion, and that using them in almost all ways seems somewhat morally suspicious. I've written a much longer article that touches on this point if you're interested called 'Things, Ends, and Animals'.
My contention is whether, even if animals would consent to some treatment in some possible world in which they possess such capacities, that it wouldn't necessarily equate to ethical treatment. Much like how I would 'consent' to someone exploiting my labour (such as not paying me anything) if it meant I was able to escape living on the streets during winter. But I don't think this sort of consent looks to be what we're looking for regarding what we owe to others. It may be instead that we owe it to animals who show themselves to us and need our help are owed such help–and they don't owe us anything for that (provided we're talking about what our obligations are).
Things like ethically sourced eggs are far and few between in my view. I don't think it permissible to have chickens to use them for getting eggs–that seems disrespectful. However if we just found an egg on the ground (no chick inside) then I hardly see an issue eating it. Though I would say something different for dead bodies as it seems to me that there is respect owed to the dead.
Regarding the killing at the end of their life, it will depend on what makes killing wrong (or perhaps different forms of exploitation wrong). I think that if a chicken still has a good day left to live (say they're old) then I still think killing them would rob them of that future. It becomes clear that killing them might be called for if they, for instance, are in agony because of this old age. But I think the appropriate intention here isn't to see an opportunity to get some meat, but rather that killing this chicken would be the best thing for them (assuming euthanasia is a real thing–which I do). I also speak a little about this in the article I mentioned prior. Link here btw: https://open.substack.com/pub/theperse/p/things-ends-and-animals?r=2o78nc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Awesome to hear you're vegan btw. I think what most concerns me is the less complex areas such as blatant animal exploitation, torture and murder, as opposed to cases of taking care of chickens until they die naturally, but still taking their eggs. Those things still concern me, but it's much less.