It has been said : “We cannot eradicate all the evils in the world, whether they be committed against human or nonhuman beings. Therefore, in pursuit of greater justice, we should remember that ‘Half a loaf is better than none.’”
No, we shouldn’t.
Suffering is unending. But I do not believe in “evil” as a thing “out there” that is acting upon us to make us do bad things. I think that good and bad exist as concepts by which we measure the things that happen and the actions we take.
We are all capable of moral behavior – that is, doing what is good – because we are the actors in our own lives. Although the outside world creates circumstances not of our own choosing, we are nevertheless capable of making choices that impact on our own lives and the lives of others, in ways that are good or bad.
So, there are things happening over which no-one has any control. The recent earthquake in Haiti is a prime example. The quake itself was neither good nor bad, it just happened. It is part of what the world is and, as such, no more good or bad than the ebb and flow of the tides. We describe the impact of the earthquake as bad because of the scale of the human tragedy involved. No-one who has seen the pictures of the destruction could think the results of the earthquake were good. But the earthquake itself wasn’t intentionally bad, although the effects of it certainly are bad.
There is another way to view the quake in terms of good and bad. How did people react and conduct themselves in the aftermath of the quake? Some people chose to act morally, by contributing their money or time to rescue efforts. Some chose to act immorally by taking advantage of the calamity by kidnapping and raping their neighbors. We should all be thankful for those who acted morally and condemn those who knowingly acted immorally. Immoral behavior, in that it is a voluntary expression of human will, is bad, from any perspective.
So, earthquakes will happen, and people will act immorally. That does not mean that earthquake are good or that we wish for earthquakes to happen. It also does not mean that we condone immorality or that we would act immorally ourselves. Recognizing how things are is not the same thing as wishing for or being complicit in them happening.
In relationship to nonhuman animals, it is absolutely true that the not every person in the world will accept their moral obligations. Not every person in the world accepts their moral obligation to respect the lives of other humans, either. But each of us, acting individually, can accept our own obligations.
I accept my obligations to other humans, as far as is possible, and as far as I know, by not participating in things such as theft, murder, rape, slavery, etc. I do what I can to not create more poverty in the world, and I contribute as I am able to help alleviate poverty. I try to do what’s right, even though I know that by living in a capitalist, sprawling consumerist society that everything I do impacts the world in ways that I do not support. I do the best I can.
When it comes to the other animals in the world, I do the same thing, the best I can. It does not matter to me, as far as my own actions are concerned, whether every other person on the planet uses animals as things and treats them as property. I will not participate in it, as far as I am able, as far as I am aware of it. I will not condone other people doing it either. I would not condone rape and murder, so I cannot condone the treatment of animals as things and property.
Is half a loaf better than none?
People generally accept other animals as things for us to use as food, clothing, entertainment, etc., not because it is right to do so. We do it because we have always done it, and because we can.
The argument has been made that stopping such use completely is not a viable goal. Insofar as the goal may never be fully and universally realized, that is true, but that alone does not tell the whole story. The goal itself is actually viable, even if it is ultimately unattainable everywhere. One would not say that we should discard the goal of ending human slavery just because we recognize that some people, somewhere will always keep others as slaves. The goal itself of ending slavery is viable, even if it may be somehow unattainable.
If you think that the goal of ending the use of animals as things and as property is a worthy one, if you think that nonhuman animals have a right to the individual lives which they alone possess, then you should be vegan. Just as you would not commit rape, or own slaves, even in the knowledge that rape and slavery themselves will never be completely eradicated, so should you not participate in the subjugation of nonhuman animals.
If you do intentionally participate in the subjugation of nonhuman animals, it does not matter that your participation is infrequent, or irregular, or occasional. Whenever you eat the flesh of a nonhuman animal, a life is ended for your pleasure, and for nothing else. The same is true whenever you wear the skin of another as clothing, or you patronize the zoos and circuses that cage others for life, or you support the medical, scientific or commercial experimentation on others as well. Cutting back on those things, while better than not, still amounts to participating in them. There is no “half loaf.”
I do not think that if I were a rapist, who in the past raped one person each week, that anyone would say, with respect to my raping, “Try to cut back to just two rapes per month. Half a loaf is better than none.” Would you suggest such a thing? No.
We cannot control the physical reality we find ourselves in – earthquakes are going to happen. We cannot ultimately control the actions of any other person. We shouldn’t if we could – on that path lies tyranny. But we each can control what we do, that is, how we alone act towards others, in our own lives. In a very real way, that is all we can do. Thankfully, it is often enough.
Recognize the inherent value in all sentient life. Understand that the will to live which we all possess means that we all must respect the lives of others. We humans and nonhumans alike all have the right to live our lives, as best we see fit, free from interference, as far as it is possible.
5 Comments
Hallo Tim, i find it almost difficult to comment on your posts beyond commending you on your detailed analysis and convincing line of argument and thanking you for frequently providing me with intellectual challenges.
I agree with your emphasis on individual responsibility for the morality of one’s actions, irrespective of the fact that too many human beings on this planet
shirk such responsibility or delegate it to religious or other authorities who in turn often base their morality on random excerpts from ancient anthologies of short stories and fairy tales (like the bible) to suit their preconceived attitudes.
And while it indeed seems almost impossible in a globalised, highly specialised capitalist world based on the division of labour to totally avoid negative impacts of our consumption patterns on other living beings and the environment, yes, when it comes to non-human animals half a loaf is not better than none.
If one acts in a manner that is not ethically vegan, it is a requisite, necessary precondition or unavoidable consequence that a rights violation against a nonhuman being’s right not to be property precedes or occurs. And in most cases the rights violation is existential, against the elementary right to life.
Now, i have deep ethical concerns (about working conditions and environmental damage in turn harming human and other animals ) about everything i consume, e.g. starting with the aluminum foil wrapped around the fair-trade organic vegan chocolate i eat to the dye of my organic cotton shirts and every petroleum-based product, so much so that i attempt to restrict all consumption as far as possible.
However, it is not a necessary precondition or inevitable consequence of my consumption of a vegan product that a human being’s basic rights are violated. If consumers were to put sufficient pressure on the supply chains of what they consume (and boycott products such as nuclear energy and other toxic products altogether), and if all those in positions of power in the supplying institutions assumed individual responsibility for the morality and ethics of their actions , it would be possible to create fair, equitable, safe working conditions without rights violations and to minimise environmental damage on every step of the supply chain, e.g. from the mining company supplying the raw materials to the IT-company contributing the software of a mobile phone. Hence in the case of ethical veganism acting morally is viable even if not fully attainable.
This is my understanding of the crucial difference, as far as my attempt to think this issue through following your rationale goes.-Britta
Britta:
Other than to say that I appreciate religious texts as expressions of our common humanity and our attempts throughout our history to understand the conditions of being and non-being through mythologies (and so I would not use the terms short stories and fairy tales), I agree in principle with all that you have said.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a substantive comment,
Tim
At first glance, i thought yours is quite an interesting position to have as an atheist, but i have to admit that 3 years in a protestant christian kindergarten followed by 8 years of compulsory protestant religious education at school have probably turned me – a born atheist – into an irreverent cynic when it comes to religion who refuses to realistically acknowledge the fundamental role that religious texts have played in the (cultural) history of our species…This is by no means an excuse, just an explanation.
Dear Mr Tim, This has been very interesting reading. I wonder were you get your ideas for your intellectual challenges. After reading your blogg from May 14th and the paper by Engel I have a better sense of where you are coming from. Engel has valid points on morality, belief systems and consistency. It is difficult to effectively debate/agrue since you are better informed and excerise a great intellectual capacity… however I will be brave and challenge you on the ‘common sense’ notion…. that Engel’s approach is common sense. If it was true, then why would he need to write the paper on the immorality of eating meat. Common sense suggests that any person with an average understanding of the issues could and would independantly make a rational and consistent moral decision. We know this is not true. Common sense is a rare commodity and is not common in the least bit. Peace, Donna
Hello Donna:
I find my intellectual challenges in the world all around me, and in the words of those who are gracious enough to challenge me.
In the post you mention, in which I discussed Mylan Engel Jr.’s paper “The Immorality of Eating Meat,” I said that “I was impressed by its appeal to common sense” in that Engel had “written in plain English and relies very little on ‘philosopher-speak.’” I was thinking of Thomas Paine and his own Common Sense written some 250 years ago.
However, you are right, “any person with an average understanding of the issues could and would independantly make a rational and consistent moral decision.” That many do not means either that they have not fully considered the argument, or that they have decided the conclusion of that argument is wrong. If the former is the case, it is not for a lack of common sense – one’s sense cannot inform of those things one remains ignorant of. If it is the latter, it may be true that the common sense is wrong, but then the onus is on them to justify their different conclusions. There is, of course, at least a third possibility, and that is that some people have considered the argument fully and yet still reject it without good reason. Sadly, we all do this all the time in many areas of our lives, holding on to preconceptions, misconceptions, prejudices and biases in the face of clear reasons to discard them. As you have noted, common sense sometimes is, unfortunately, quite uncommon.
Thanks for your comments,
Tim
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] way of stating this was posted by Tim Gier in an article titled, Is Half A Loaf Better Than [...]
Post a Comment