Is it Ever Right for Animals to Suffer?

On Sunday, the Washington Post published a debate on the question of "Is it ever right for animals to suffer?" between Andrew Linzey (on the pro-animal side) and Adrian Morrison (on the other side). Linzey is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and author of "Why Animal Suffering Matters: Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics" (Buy Direct). Morrison is Professor Emeritus of behavioral neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine.

While I felt that Linzey made excellent points, I found that Morrison dodged the question and relied on unpersuasive arguments about Western religious heritage and the supposed uniqueness of our species. I won't repeat Linzey's arguments, but just wanted to add some of my own thoughts on why Morrison's arguments were unpersuasive.

For example, Morrison argues that denying that we have a unique capacity for human dignity "poses a real danger to humanity." First of all, every species is unique. Porcupines are unique, but that doesn't mean they are in a unique position morally. I also found the argument about the "danger" unconvincing. If we stop exploiting animals, it doesn't mean that we are in danger; it means that we are no longer putting other animals in danger.

To look at it another way, if the king is no longer allowed to steal from the peasants, it doesn't mean that the king is in danger. It means that he is no longer putting the peasants in danger.

The analogy is not so far-fetched. Not too long ago, it was thought that royalty was divine and therefore deserving of their special rights. And today, people still argue that because of divine intervention, our species has been granted and is deserving of special rights, over other animals. But unless those other animals are willing followers of this religious dictate, imposing this religious belief on them is wrong.

Morrison writes that we should "recognize duties to our fellow beings," but refuses to delineate what that entails because, he believes, each individual should decide for himself whether he finds rodeos, hunting or other animal uses "necessary" in his life. By saying that we do have duties to our fellow beings, isn't that a "no," or at least a "sometimes" in response to the question of whether it is right to cause animals to suffer? But Morrison's argument that each person should decide for himself in which ways animals should not be allowed to suffer is moral anarchy and does nothing to recognize any duties to our fellow beings.

Morrison also throws a red herring into the mix, and compares one's child to one's dog because, he claims, "morality and practicality depend on making choices between them." The question is not whether one values a dog over a child, but whether the dog is worthy of moral consideration. What's the difference? You can value your child over your dog, but that does not mean that it's morally defensible to keep your dog in a factory farm and then eat him.

Instead of answering the question of whether we have a right to cause suffering to non-human animals, Morrison finds the answer "no" so upsetting and the answer "yes" so immoral, that he can neither address the question directly nor defend the answer "yes" coherently.

Morrison is not alone. I find that many people say they love animals but have no problem ordering a hamburger at McDonald's. It's a morally ambiguous position, and it's a common one because people find it too difficult to be vegan, but find it too distateful to argue that animals deserve no moral consideration. Can one take a position in the middle? Yes, but it's difficult in modern America to, for example, take a position against factory farming without being vegan. Do you really know where those eggs in your cookies came from?

I changed my mind. I will repeat one small paragraph of Linzey's argument, in response to Morrison's religious argument:

Adrian refers to our "religious heritage," so I should explain that on a theological understanding of creation, we are not God; the world does not exist for our wants and pleasure. The best interpretation of "dominion" in Genesis is not that we are the "master species" but the "servant species." We are to use our power to care for the Earth, especially its weaker inhabitants.

Suggested Reading:

• Basic Tenets of Animal Rights
  
• Factory Farming FAQ
  
• Animal Rights v. Animal Welfare
  
• Animal Rights and Human Nature, From One Christian Perspective

Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter