What we owe animals: animal ethics from food to pets

This article was first published in the Beijing News Book Review Weekly under the title "Your love for pets is actually selfish desire?"

Animals are closely related to our lives. Animals are important companions in human life, and we live under the same roof with cats and dogs; similarly, we bring animals to the table, whether in a friendly or cruel way. Even the countless different species of animals that live far away in the grasslands or deep into the rainforest are closely linked to our lives. What can't be doubted is that we humans are also a member of the animal world. As members of the community, how humans should treat other animals that are close and distant relatives is a big question that we cannot avoid, even if we often avoid facing such questions.

Harvard philosophy professor Christine M. Korsgaard's new book, Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the other Animals , is a new attempt to confront these questions. Ke Sijia is a leader in the field of moral philosophy, and has a great influence on the interpretation and development of Kant's ethics. In her new book, she attempts to start from Kantian moral obligations, re-found our moral demands on other animals, and explore public issues through rigorous moral philosophical arguments, from abstract animal ethics to concrete vegetarianism and the kindness to animals movement . Both moral philosophy researchers and general readers can benefit from this book.

To delve into the issues discussed in Ke Sijia's "Partners of Life", we must first understand the background of the discussion of animal ethics or animal liberation. In this context, the most dazzling is the Australian philosopher Peter Singer. His famous book, Animal Liberation , is a philosophical work that caused a revolution. "The purpose of this book is to discuss human atrocities against non-human animals," Singer stated in the preface to the book's first edition in 1975.

Singer's Animal Liberation Revolution: The Animal Ethics of Utilitarianism

"Animal Liberation", which caused the "revolution", is actually very concise in its argumentation structure. For Singer, the basic principle is that pain is a bad thing, a negative value. We should not add unnecessary suffering to the world. And the various behaviors of human beings to animals just bring great pain to animals, and these pains are unnecessary.

In the book, Singer shows us the cruelty we treat animals, and the examples are endless. Whether in the military field or in the scientific field, we often use animals for brutal experiments, such as the release of poison gas, radiation, and so on described in the book. And, as Singer shows, these experiments often don't really work.

The way we turn animals into food on the table is equally brutal. In our imagination, the animals familiar to city people seem to live leisurely on romantic farms. However, the reality is far from our imagination. The daily consumption of egg, milk and meat products basically comes from factory farms and assembly line slaughterhouses. On these farms, laying hens are forced to lay their eggs continuously in reversed daylight, even immobilized so that they cannot move at all. Broilers cannot stretch in crowded chicken coops. Pigs are constantly fed, but cannot move. The calf is taken from its mother at birth and turned into a noble food on the table in the slaughterhouse. Not to mention the suffering of animals produced in slaughterhouses. As documented in Paul McCartney's "If Slaughterhouses had glass walls..." documentary, the pain is enormous and unnecessary.

So, given a set of empirical facts, Singer can conclude that since the way we treat animals is causing so much suffering to them, we should at least stop these activities. These activities bear the brunt of those cruel animal experiments, and the cruel breeding that we bring about by eating animals and using animal products. Vegetarianism was the primary action guided by Singer's animal liberation.

Singer's argument is a typical utilitarian argument. In the view of utilitarianism, there is an objective basic unit of value in the world: benefit. The moral action is to do the action that will bring the greatest benefit. The basic principle of utilitarianism is very close to our everyday intuition that the right action is the action that will bring the greatest benefit. Different from egoism, utilitarianism insists on objective values, so the maximum benefit or maximum benefit should be the consideration of all benefits objectively. According to Singer, the most basic benefit is happiness in the world, and freedom from suffering. That being the case, reducing suffering in the world is a moral imperative, regardless of whether those suffering are humans or other animals. Treating all suffering equally is the equality of animals in Singer's view.

Ke Sijia's Animal Ethics: Starting from Kantian Obligation

Singer's utilitarian argument is very direct and indirect, and is a very effective philosophical foundation for animal rights. But while agreeing with Singer's animal liberation on many fronts, such as ending the cruelty associated with eating animals and using animal products, Ke Sijia disagrees with the moral basis behind Singer's views. The most obvious point is that Ke Sijia does not agree that the existence of undifferentiated basic units of value, especially the comparison of values across individuals, is not as simple as Singer's utilitarianism describes.

From her interpretation of Kant's moral philosophy, Ke Sijia argues that all values must be tethered. Simply put, all values are related to the individual, that is, all values are "good-for". Ke Sijia believes that, by definition, animals are things that have ultimate value, and the value of all things arises because they are important to her. Books are important and valuable to me, and catnip is important and valuable to my cat. Because of this, Singer's argument posits a value that is independent of any individual -- pleasure or freedom from pain -- being problematic. Any value appears and has meaning only because of the individual tied to it.

However, although the value is bound, this does not mean that the value is completely determined by the individual will. Something can be valuable to multiple individuals at the same time. A quiet environment is important to, and therefore valuable to, residents of the entire campus. Air quality in cities has value to citizens. Value is bundled, which simply means that the source of the value comes from the subject to which it is associated. Value does not come from nothing. As Ke Sijia said, our pursuit of the so-called absolute value is actually the pursuit of the value that is important to all individuals. If we can find something that is important to all individuals, it is naturally good-for everyone.

If the values are bound, then the assertion that human life is more valuable than the life of other animals will be wrong, and even, Ke Sijia believes, these comparisons themselves are meaningless. Opponents of animal rights often try to argue that humans are superior to other animals by illustrating the differences between them and humans. This superiority is not only a comparison of abilities, but also a comparison of moral status. We can admit that there are quite a few differences between humans and other animals, both in physical and cognitive abilities. But these differences often fail to deduce morality and value. If it is to be concluded that humans have higher cognitive abilities and therefore are more valuable than other animals, Ke Sijia's first rhetorical question is: who is good for whom? Our life (and the value in life) is valuable to us, even more valuable to us than other animals, but we must not forget that animals are not only instrumental (Ke Sijia uses functional good), And it's a source of value. This means that the lives of other animals are very valuable to them, because life contains all kinds of things that are important to them, even more valuable to them than our lives. It is problematic to compare the value of life between humans and other animals only by means of significance in the sense of instrumental value.

Likewise, our lives are more valuable to us than the lives of other animals, and such a bundled value comparison is problematic. Human beings as a source of value can interpret the world as seen as a valenced world. Different things have different values, and so do our lives. Our lives have value, and different things in life have different values. And in the same way, other animals, who are also sources of value, can see the world with value. In order for the function of life to continue, the world in the eyes of other animals also has different values: from food, to drinking water, to living, to weather, to companions, etc., are things of different value to them. Their lives have value to them, and their lives contain various values. How can we say that our lives are worth more to us than the lives of other animals are worth to them?

In Ke Sijia's view, the only difference between humans and other animals in this regard is our ability to reason. This capacity for reason allows us to reflect on the way we assign value and act. In other words, the ability to reason allows us to reflect on our reasons, making our beliefs, thinking, and actions more harmonious. We can evaluate our beliefs and actions, and thus ourselves. However, this does not affect the value itself. Other animals may not be able to reflect on the reasons behind foraging or resting, but this is far from the fact that foraging or resting is of no value to them. Things are still "to avoid", "to hunt down", "to get to the bottom", "to take care of", etc. to them. It's just two different minds.

If we have the empathy we deserve, we should be able to understand the value of the lives of other animals to them, and we should be able to understand what kind of life experiences, bloom or misery, their lives will bring to them . The value of their lives and life experiences to them is as real and as important to us as our lives and life experiences are to us. It is questionable and meaningless to compare the so-called absolute levels of these values. We cannot judge an animal's life as being less valuable by the evaluation criteria that apply only to us.

Judging from the above arguments, Ke Sijia's philosophical basis for animal rights is indeed different from Singer's theory. Ke Sijia does not recognize the value standard that is independent of all individuals, but starts from Kantian moral philosophy, explains that all animals themselves are the source of value, and refutes the comparison of the value of human beings and other animals. Avoiding the computational strategy of utilitarianism, Ke Sijia's point of view seems to respect the individual animal, not only as a simple carrier of pleasure and pain, but also emphasizes the value of animal life itself more than Singer's argument. However, even as she attempts to revise and develop Kant's theory in her book, Ke Sijia's argument still leaves behind a lot of Kantian anthropocentrism. As University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum points out, Kosja's argument is still to give animals moral respect through their resemblance to us and our empathy for them. Ke Sijia believes that even if animals have no moral ability, we who have moral ability can still incorporate animals into moral considerations. This may be where Nusbon is dissatisfied. Nusbon believes that our respect for animals should come from the animals themselves, based on their capabilities. In addition, Ke Sijia's theory borrows a very specific view of individuals and values. In today's value-pluralistic society, even in a polarized society, it seems doubtful whether it can provide effective public principles. Although Ke Sijia's theory would lead to the same conclusion, it seems that Singer's utilitarian theory, which relies on fewer value premises, is more likely to be a valid public principle.

From the food on the table to the companionship of human friends

Ke Sijia's new book not only presents different moral theories about animal rights, but also discusses specific animal ethics issues. From the food on the table to the pets that accompany us, these are very specific issues, and they are all relevant to us.

The issue of food animals is well known and has frequently appeared in public discussions. Science has long shown that the nutrients that humans need are basically not required to be fully obtained by eating animals. Eating animals is often just out of our pursuit and habit of food taste. Because of the market demand for meat food, we raise animals excessively cruelly, inflicting great pain on them, and at the same time regard animal life as a simple tool for human use, no matter Singer's utilitarianism or Ke Sijia's Kantian morality, would be strongly opposed. Since these are unnecessary wrongdoings, we have every reason to oppose edible animals, especially the almost crazy declarative slaughter like the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, which requires strong opposition.

However, how should we treat the pets that accompany us? In a sense, having pets makes no evolutionary sense. As animal anthropologist Hal Herzog puts it in "Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat" ( Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat ), human beings spend a lot of time keeping pets, energy and resources, but they do not contribute to the continuation of our genes. Therefore, in addition to some small benefits, keeping pets is more to accompany us. Pets are more intuitively our life partners, so how we should treat them, and even whether we should keep pets, inevitably requires us to think about it.

How pets should be treated is a relatively uncontroversial issue, although controversy persists. As David DeGrazia, a professor of philosophy at George Washington University, said in his Animal Rights , the two most basic conditions for keeping pets are that we meet their basic Physical and psychological needs, and we want to provide them with a life at least as good as survival in the wild. Ke Sijia believes that pets living in a civilized society do enjoy many benefits that are also valuable from their point of view. Society provides pets with medical treatment, extended lifespan, protection from predators, a constant supply of food, and more. In order for pets to have a good life in society, society still needs to do more, including adjusting our social structure to ensure the well-being of pets and provide them with the social services they need, such as local social subsidies to provide low-cost sterilization services , animal rescue centers, etc. Changes may also be required in personal lives, after all (and we need to realize that) pet ownership is a responsibility.

As for whether we should keep animals, neither de Grazia nor Ke Sijia have a clear answer. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) declared on its official website that it is a selfish desire to own animals and demand love from them, and even cause them incomparable pain, " From manipulating their breeding and breeding, arbitrarily selling animals, to stripping them of their chance to live in their natural environment.” So we should gradually abolish the custom and practice of keeping animals by humans.

Maybe PETA's position may sound radical. For highly domesticated animals like cats and dogs, we cannot simply put them back into their "natural environment", and they may not be able to survive alone in the wild. But it is not impossible, for example, we can help to establish reserved areas for these pets, giving them the necessary support to make them live more freely. Still, the question of whether or not to keep animals remains a question that has not been fully discussed in public, and the answer is even more uncertain.

How to treat animals is a question that every human being who claims to be more evolved needs to think about. A civilized society means that we no longer live under the fictional "law of the jungle", and other animals, as human life partners, need and deserve more respect from us. It is true that we cannot change our past history of cruelty to animals, but we can change the present for a better future. If we owe other animals anything, it should be our obligation to respect their lives.