Speciesism+and+the+ethical+treatment+of+animals


 * Danielle Field n8803455 (Tutor: Michelle Cornford) **

** Ethical treatment of animals **



**Cultural artefact ** The picture above is referring to the concept of speciesism. Speciesism is the belief that it is justifiable to exclude all non-human animals from the rights and values that are assigned to our own species, homo-sapiens. Peter Singer is one of many animal rights advocates who believe that cruelty to animals from factory farming and scientific experiment is maintained as a result of the speciesist viewpoint which is held by the majority. Peter Singer asks us to consider the parallel between this common view and previous racist and sexist prejudices. He believes that just as those views are now outwardly unjust, we therefore have an obligation to extend this principle to those of other species. **Public health issue ** The health issues pertinent to this artefact are global hunger and the goal toward achieving greater global food security. There are now more overweight people than underweight – however, 870 million people suffer from daily hunger. Of this figure, 130 million children under five years of age are underweight and malnourished, and as a result, their growth and development are severely hindered. In contrast, first world countries have increased meat consumption and the population is also rising. The desire to consume meat has greatly affected the balance of food production and distribution. Thirty to fifty per cent of food produced goes to waste, equivalent to almost 2 billion tonnes annually. The reality, however, is that if current food production was equally divided, each individual would receive 2800 calories a day, which is well above the recommended intake of nutrients required.
 *  Less meat = Less animal suffering = Greater food security **

Below, each family sits with a weeks’ worth of food. **Sudan, Germany, Guatemala, Australia. (Hungry Planet, 2000). **

**Literature review ** Animals are sentient beings; sentience includes feeling pain, happiness and the capacity to perceive one’s own existence (Voiceless, 2013). Approximately 56 billion sentient beings are raised and slaughtered for human consumption annually (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2006). As an animal rights advocate and ethical theorist, Peter Singer argues from a utilitarian viewpoint, stating that sentient beings deserve equal consideration. This does not mean that animals should receive the same rights as humans do, but rather the equal consideration that leads to the different rights in the context of the animal concerned (Singer, 1990). In this sense, utilitarianism oversees that moral consideration is giving to those with interests, with sentience being the qualifying characteristic and not merely the inclusion of belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Matheny, 2006).



Leading the topic of the animal rights debate is the contract view of ethics, wherein the main ethical perspective is based upon the moral agreement that most live by, that is, “if you don’t harm me, I won’t harm you” (Singer, 2006). Contract theorists argue that animals hold no attachment to a moral life and cannot partake in any such contract; they are not governed by reason as humans are, and therefore they do not fall inside the “sphere of morality” (DeGrazia, 2006). This superior stance point is known as human exceptionalism (Jones, 2013). The argument that humans stand alone as the only species considered to be moral agents is defended by the application of an individual’s capacity to be self-aware (Singer, 2006). Self-awareness is said to be a higher cognitive function and is allegedly something that sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom; they are supposedly unable to reflect upon their experiences and actions, or the experiences and actions of others (Jones, 2013). The rebuttal to this view is that as animals are not moral beings and are unable to partake in this contract, this should then imply the direct duty we have toward them and their welfare (Singer, 1990). This view would then imply that beings of lower intelligence and reasoning ability, such as infants and those with intellectual disabilities, are as equally unable to partake in a moral contract – however, we do not see such exploitation in our own species, as we strongly oppose any such treatment toward other humans (Singer, 2006).

The theory of subjective feeling is given little consideration toward the treatment of animals. Human behaviour is largely ruled by our duty toward each other primarily because of the capability to empathize and appreciate subjective experience in another human being. Upon this consideration, we decide morally how to do right or wrong by others (Dawkins, 2006). As human beings cannot liken the suffering of an animal to that of one’s own, we therefore neglect to assign any mental life to non-human animals and inflict unnecessary pain and discomfort upon them for the sake of the enjoyment of eating their flesh (Singer, 1990). The term ‘suffering’ is highly debated, and in regard to animals it is broadly defined to be an “extremely subjective unpleasant mental state” (Dawkins, 2006). Animals have evolved along the same lines as us, and a large majority of the animals bred for human consumption are mammals, just like us. Animals have similar nervous systems – containing nociceptors, opioid receptors and endorphins as chemical messengers – and respond physiologically to stimulus and the environment in the same manner as humans do (Jones, 2013). The correlation between noxious stimuli and psychological distress has been documented in recent studies conducted on mammals. Female baboons have been recorded to have an increased cortisol level when there has been a death of a relative, and also in nursing baboons when there is the threat of an aggressive male group member (Jones, 2013).

Memory has an integral role when contributing toward what is known to make up rationality, and is classified by function amongst the numerous memory types – the most relevant to animals being episodic memory. Episodic memory allows the recall of past experiences and also the ability to anticipate future events (Mahar, 2012). This kind of memory has been documented in several animal studies and is an important aspect in the overall suffering of animals raised for food (Jones, 2013).

Policies around the world fail to include factory farmed animals the protective measures awarded to some animals. Poor technique sends many animals to their slaughter fully conscious (Jones, 2013), while animals that are slaughtered for Halal meat are not permitted to be stunned first. In the case of cattle, consciousness is supported by an extra blood supply to the back of the neck. Consciousness is lost slowly and the animal is fully aware as it bleeds out (RSPCA, 2013). Even if the current laws on stunning were enforced, the sheer number of animals slaughtered each year would require policing above the means capable of the enforcing legislative body (Singer, 2006). Annually, 1.02 billion cattle, 1.2 billion pigs and almost 40 billion chickens are raised mostly in factory farms. The animals are subjected to numerous practices without any analgesia, such as castration, ear tagging, dehorning and tail docking (Jones, 2013).

The classification of sentience is unfortunately inconsequential to the farming practices around the world. Producing meat is a commodity and will be treated as such until animals are viewed through a different lens (Singer, 2006). Researchers need to continue to devise a range of measurable tests that validate animal suffering. Governing bodies responsible for the laws and policies around the treatment of farmed animals need to consider the current literature available regarding suffering. In doing so, they also need to consider moving away from the recurring excuse of an animal’s lack of language and subjective experience that is continually applied to justify inhumane treatment (Jones, 2013).

**Cultural and social analysis **

Historically, our views for the treatment of animals have been driven by the dominant religions. Recent history is dominated by the Abrahamic religions, which are human-centred and view animals as subordinate beings. This has been the primary influence towards the practice of farming animals in the industrialized world. These religions live by the concept of creation, whereby humans have dominion over the earth and animals are seen to exist for the sole use of mankind (Waldau, 2006). This is in itself a definitive example of speciesism (Andrew & Clark, 2012). The Sanskrit religions are dominated by the concept Ahimsa – which means “do not harm” – life is seen to be cyclic and on a continuum with the other beings that share the earth, while laws such as karma are followed. There is no traditional rule that determines the way individuals will treat animals per religious order; it is more the social construct of how they live and by what moral order an animal is placed (Waldau, 2006). In todays’ society we see a strong undertone of these religious ideals in food choice, even if individuals do not follow a particular religion (Menzel & D’Aluisio, 2000).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Food choice is ruled by culture and lifestyle. Factory farmed meat is a cheap reliable source for consumers – however, if everyone ate a Western diet, we would require two planets to sustain its production (Wollen, 2010). As consumers, we are swayed by the powers of advertisement and believe that animal welfare is a priority for farmers, and yet this isn’t often the case. Ambiguous labelling confuses consumers, as products are marketed to imply that animals are being looked after. Labels indicate RSPCA approval or free range standards, while pictures optimistically display happy cows standing in green meadows. Paul McCartney famously said that “if slaughter houses had glass walls, then everyone would be a vegetarian” (PETA, 2013). Despite this, change is happening – there are 600 million vegetarians today amongst the total population of 7 billion (Wollen, 2010). Organisations such as PETA and Oxfam continue to bring confronting material to the attention of the public, exposing factory farming for what it truly stands for.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Factory farming brings animals into existence for human use with no concern for the life they will live or the misery they will endure. In the past we have challenged many cultural practices, such as the abolition of slavery and the liberation of women in some parts of the world. However, this extension of consideration should move beyond the boundaries of our own species and include those who have no voice. Factory farming is a cultural practice that inflicts unnecessary pain, and we have an obligation to challenge this harmful practice just as we have challenged others in the past (Singer, 1990).

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 26.6667px;">Analysis of the artefact and reflection **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">The artefact is a true representation of how humanity has lost our sense of stewardship toward each other and to our planet. It depicts what is at the centre of human nature. On one side, it voices the manipulative ability we have to deprive other beings, while the other side depicts a quote from Martin Luther which illustrates unwavering compassion. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Throughout my time researching this assignment I have learned that we have a tendency to go along with and partake in practices we know to be wrong because it is what the majority do. We like to think we are excluded from the majority, but unless we are really willing to do some background work, we are instead only going along for the sake of the ride without forming our own opinions. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">For several years I have been moving in and out of a vegetarian lifestyle, eating meat when I felt like it and justifying it by the reassurance that it was a rare indulgence. I choose now to live as a vegetarian and appreciate the fact that by not supporting the practice of factory farming that I have prevented a being from suffering, regardless of how small it may be. Like Coleridge’s mariner, I am free to tell my tale and will wander the earth converting one carnivore at a time (Coleridge, 1857).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Reflection reviews:
http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/Can+meat+be+part+of+a+%27low-carbon%27+diet%3F http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/The+Price+of+Love

= <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">References =

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Andrew, L., & Clarke, P.B. (2012). Animal rights: A historical anthology. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Coleridge, S. T. (1857 ). //The rime of the ancient mariner.// New York; Publisher unknown. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Conway, G. (2012). //One billion hungry.// Ithica, N.Y. Cornell University Press. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Dawkins, M. S. (2006). The scientific basis for assessing suffering in animals. In P. Singer (Ed.), //In defence of animals: the second wave// (pp. 28-39). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">DeGrazia, D. (2006). On the question of personhood beyond Homo sapiens. In P. Singer (Ed.), //In defence of animals: the second wave// (pp. 40-53). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Jones, R. C. (2012) Science, sentience and animal welfare. //Biology and philosophy, 28,// pp. 1-30. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Kindnesstrust. (2012). //Philip Wollen: Animals should be off the menu debate.// Retreived October 30, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCe4qEexjc <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Mahar, D. (2012). //Perception and cognition.// (p.186).Sydney, NSW. Pearson. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Matheny, G. (2006). Utilitarianism and animals. In P. Singer (Ed.), //In defence of animals: the second wave// (pp. 15-25). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Menzel, P., & D’Aluisio. (2005). //Hungry planet.// Napa, CA. Material World Books. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Official PETA. (2013). //Official “Glass Walls” video by Paul McCartney.// Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql8xkSYvwJs <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The ethics of what we eat. Melbourne, VIC. Text Publishing. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation. Rev.ed. New York, N.Y.Avon Book. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Singer, P. (2006). In defence of Animals: the second wave. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Waldau, P. (2006). The animal debate: A re-examination. In P. Singer (Ed.), //In defence of animals: the second wave// (pp. 54-68). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">What is halal slaughter in Australia? (2013). Retrieved November 1, 2013, from []