Ceasing Animal Exploitation to Adopt an Environmental Ethic and Preserve Morality in Man

With the advancement of technology and growing greed for money and fame, human access to power has grown exponentially. This desire for power has translated into human inflicted exploitation of the natural environment for personal gain. Some trophy hunt to feed their addiction to bloodshed and power. Many laboratories are still conducting unnecessary tests on animals while proven, effective alternatives are available. And humans are currently consuming alarmingly high amounts of meat, which is both unnatural and unhealthy. What we impose on animals right now is far from natural. Each of these instances of animal cruelty for human gain leads to severe consequences on the environment and biodiversity; ultimately, feeding the decline of our planet at an increasingly rapid rate. Unfortunately, because of man’s self-interested nature, cruelty is only acknowledged when profitability ceases. Regardless of this, we must make some sacrifices for the current and future betterment of our planet and the organisms that inhabit it. Mankind needs to be more environmentally ethical to respect the dignity and value of non-human animals, maintain a balanced environment with regards towards the spirituality of earth, and preserve morality in mankind.

Non-human animals are equally worthy of dignity and respect as are humans because they are sentient beings who possess complex emotions. Animals are often denied respect and dignity because of the speciesist beliefs we hold. Speciesism is a term popularized by Australian philosopher Peter Singer used to describe the selective discrimination of animals and belief that some animals are more superior than others. This is why some cultures eat dog corpses and others keep them as pets. As a result of speciesism, we treat animals and nature as lifeless tools, manipulated to fit what man wants. For example, science laboratories can buy baby pigs without a pancreas or mice with Alzheimer’s, according to Susan Kopp and Charles Camosy from America: the Jesuit Review. Similarly, on factory farms, we inject animals with hormones that make parts of their bodies larger, marketable, and more profitable found Farm Sanctuary’s Gene Baur.

Utilitarian philosopher and pioneer in animal ethics, Peter Singer compares the foundations of speciesism similar to that of racism. He notes that the way we currently normalize the oppression of animals is similar to how the oppression of minorities was widely acceptable in American history. From a modern lens, we see these prejudiced actions in history as unethical. However, at the time, the oppressor was not aware that they were doing wrong as the current wrong was a past normal. The same can be applied to animal abuse as we are the oppressor who selfishly oppress animals; turning a blind eye to the wrongdoings of this. We resist ignoring the life before meat by referring to dead cows and pigs as beef and pork and fail to recognize the murder behind meat by staying distant from the killing process kept behind closed doors. In factory farms, where most of our meat comes from, animals are confined in tiny cages where they can’t move for their entire lives, are branded with third-degree burns from hot irons, have their body parts chopped off without anesthetic, and more, found Huemer. This relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed has been seen in history as well because the oppressor is benefitting from the oppression and is often resistant to see the harm they are doing till it is pointed out. In his Dialogues on Ethical Veganism, philosopher Michael Huemer details this idea through an example of the Nazi rule. During the time, “the Nazis didn’t know that killing Jews was wrong either. Many of them thought that it was morally right” (Huemer). Today, we are aware that this period in history was among the greatest of human evils. But we do not become “aware of latent prejudice in our attitudes to particular groups until this prejudice is forcefully pointed out” (Singer). Therefore, our mistreatment of animals needs to be more actively pointed out so we can be more ecologically moral and work towards developing a needed environmental ethic. In an ideal future, hopefully humans will recognize our current treatment of animals as unethical and condemn extreme speciesism.

Unfortunately, with the current attitude around non-human animal life, most will try to justify the abuse of animals by arguing that they are less intelligent than humans, so it is okay for us to kill them for human gain. However, the intelligence argument fails because with that logic, humans with below-perfect abilities can be condemned to oppression under a better race. Huemer also refutes this argument when he poses a rhetorical question asking if a human with a higher IQ or SAT score is more worthy of pain alleviation. The obvious answer to this being no. So why do we use this to justify animal abuse?

Instead of attempting to rank animals’ worths from a biased human perspective, we should lean towards treating animals with dignity and recognizing their intrinsic value. Singer is “urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species” (Singer). However, Completely banning consumption of animals is unreasonable, as meat is currently easily accessible, holds cultural value for many and has become a commodity that humans feel entitled to eat everyday. Therefore, while speciesism is wrong and each sentient organism deserves equal respect, it is understandable as to why speciesism exists and why there are times where we must act in speciest manners.

Therefore, philosopher Jeremy Bentham introduces a balance that equates humans and non-human animals, whilst acknowledging that we can use them as long as pointless cruelty is avoided. “Bentham generally assumes that any form of animal use that increases human welfare is permissible, as long as it is not wanton” (Kneiss). Similarly, priest, ethicist, and professor Theodore Vitali states that we should “do no harm unless there is a proportionate reason to do so” (Vitali). These philosophers go between two extremes to recognize that while animals are incredibly perceptive and beautiful beings that deserve our respect, we cannot sacrifice high human value for the sake of full equality among all species.

However, within this middle-ground reasoning, there is still plenty of room left open to interpretation, as this rule cannot cover all the bases regarding land and animal ethics. For example, some do not believe there is reason for humans to eat meat, while others think meat is essential to human survival. Therefore, vegans and vegetarians would not consider non-vegetarian diets to be a proportionate reason to cause animals harm. I would argue that modern consumption of meat is not within proportionate reason. This is because urban meat is produced unnaturally through factory farming. The face of animal use in food has vastly diverted from the natural process it once was. In the past, one animal body could feed, dress and supply a whole family. Meat was a respected luxury. Today, a look into slaughterhouses reveals the horrific torture endured by highly sentient animals under a mechanical system that is far from natural. If we cannot access meat naturally and ethically as humans did in the past or indigenous communities do now, we should not be eating it to the extent we are.

While innocent blood is being shed, the environment and human health are collapsing. Hormones are unnaturally pumped in animals before they are slaughtered for meat and this is negatively affecting human bodies. Additionally toxins, waste, and diseases from the food industry are polluting the air and water, killing aquatic life, and threatening human health. Cities are being drained of rivers and aquifers, as the demand for more land to raise animals continues to grow. This makes it evident that the fundamental wrong is the whole system that allows us to view animals as merely our resources here for us to eat, manipulate, and exploit for sport or money.

However, as humans with a superior morality, we have the ability to change this. As philosopher Immanuel Kant says, unlike animals, humans are distinguished by their ability to be under moral laws. This distinction should not be interpreted as a means for mankind to use their superiority for power and greed. Instead, we should use our unique abilities as a means to conserve the land rather than selfishly destroy it as we are right now. Huemer explains that we should use our superior morality to lead vegan and vegetarian lives. The solution to reducing meat consumption lies in making vegetarian foods more accessible, regulating meat production, and educating the public about cooking and healthy eating. Senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D — NY) recognized this when, in regard to cattle production’s negative effect on carbon emission, she said that “maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner”. We need to recognize that we only overpower other species to a degree and should execute this power in moderation and for a greater good. Being the most rational animals, we should see ourselves as guardians of the environment. And this is done through adopting the Land Ethic.

In his Land Ethic, conservationist Aldo Leopold famously stated that “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community” (Leopold). This reveals the importance of recognizing and maintaining the spirituality of the earth by developing an environmental ethic. Currently, the human race is not environmentally aware and moral, which is evident through our reckless actions in an increasingly selfish and industrial world. We believe that in order to thrive, we must destroy natural habitats, drill for oil, hunt endangered animals, and more. Rather than viewing land as property and a means for humans to gain power, Leopold believes we should regard ourselves as part of a community that includes the intrinsically beautiful land and its living organisms. This would require us to develop an “ecological conscience”, which means accepting responsibility for maintaining healthy land even when it is not convenient or economically profitable. This would stem from a “love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value” (Leopold). Unfortunately, humanity has yet to collectively attain this level of respect for the land. But this is essential to maintain the health and longevity of our planet. Through his writing, Leopold encourages readers to develop a land ethic so that humanity can begin to operate with “gentler and more objective criteria” for successful land use.

Kant notes that “Cruelty to animals should be against the law, not only because it harms animals but also because it harms our humanity” (Kant). He believes that the way we treat animals is a reflection of how we treat each other and how moral we are when he said that “our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity” (Kant). Humanity and basic ethics encourage us to have a moral obligation to others. This moral duty should extend into a land ethic that bans pointless cruelty and over-exploitation of environmental elements. In return, this will allow us to treat animals with the respect they deserve, create a balanced environment, and restore humanity in man. To do this however, we must slightly shift from anthropocentrism and hedonism to sentiocentrism. This would include a reduction in feeding human ego and superiority and allot some attention to the needs of animals and the natural world. Perhaps when our world is advanced enough, we may disapprove of our current usurpation of the land and its creatures the same way we criticize a time where black individuals were treated as property, eugenics was supported, and women could not vote.

Progressive strides must be taken to protect the lives of animals, which requires us to be actively aware of the damage that is being done. After becoming cognizant of the abundant animal abuse in consumption and experimentation, we need to start implementing solutions. It should not have to seem like an extremist approach to advocate for animals’ lives. Simply revisiting many of our laws and procedures can drastically reduce the number of bodies used and abused. Like Peter Singer said, “we must be prepared to re-think even our most fundamental attitudes’’ if we want to avoid oppression of animals and the environment (Singer). This way, we can bridge the gap between the human world and the environment by treating the other animals that walk on this planet with more compassion and dignity.