(I do eat the ambiguous fish ...)
On page 81, one of Elizabeth's dissenters (as Willy would call him) poses the most valuable question. "What wasn't clear to me, is what you are targeting ... close down factory farms? stop eating meat? treat animals more humanely? kill them more humanely? stop experiments on/with animals? Can you clarify?"
Elizabeth is dumbfounded, and responds with the vague remark that he should follow his heart. I would just like to clarify what exactly I find morally permissible and what I don't, and try to answer this man's question where Elizabeth could not.
I find that certain scientific experimentation with animals is morally acceptable and there is some that is not. I agree that scientific research conducted on primates is not morally permissible if it is performed with the intention of fulfilling a minor human interest; however I do feel that it is morally acceptable on the grounds of procuring a major human interest such as human life.
People will continue to die of AIDS and cancer, therefore a pursuit of a cure to these illnesses would be morally permissible under these pretences. However, shampoo is not necessary to human survival, therefore it is wrong to cause pain to an animal for this trivial purpose.
I think that Elizabeth is confused, and needs to be more direct with her concerns. "John, I don't know what to do, I just don't want to sit silent (104)." Yet I think that she would agree with Peter Singer, "we should bring nonhuman animals within our sphere of moral concern and cease to treat their lives as expendable for whatever trivial purposes we may have." (Singer 83)
To me, while it is simple to denounce meat production as an industry for the mere indulgence of the taste buds, such a dismissal is not simply established with animal research (in particular that which has the potential to cause tremendous benefits for society.)
Conclusion.
yay to successful testing for cancer drugs
nay to testing for toilet bowl cleaner
yay to testing to save human life, (I am a speciesist, and a vegetarian, see comment)
nay to testing to procure minor human interests
nay to eating meat just because we like it
... but I still don't know what to do about the "ambiguous fish, which has a backbone but does not breathe air or suckle its young" (83).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think what you are referring to is the "all or nothing" fallacy that if you disagree with something, you must separate from it entirely. You are right though, it seems odd that Elizabeth would be surprised for that opinion to be associated with her more specific complaint. It's quite common for a person to see flaws in something without really seeing the best possible solution to it. Also, the double standard for fish is interesting since cows are supposedly one of the dumbest creatures on the planet.
Post a Comment