Singer describes famine as a preventable form of suffering that is inflicted upon millions of people each day. He passionately states that, "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it". He suggests that we forgo all the unnecessary excesses of life, and donate time and money until the suffering ends or we are reduced to a level of marginal utility in our effort to help those in need. The extremes of this view may seem absurd, but the examples of that philosophy in Mother Teresa and Grampa Dobri do shine as ethical beacons throughout the world.
Thus there is little doubt that reducing the suffering of man is ethical, but can this philosophy be applied equally to non-human animals? It's difficult to know Singer's opinion on this. While he does state that non-human animals can suffer and that they have moral rights, he also says that "nowhere do I state that the capacity of animals to enjoy life is equal to that of humans." This suggests that he would not advocate reducing yourself to a level of marginal utility in order to prevent non-human animal abuse. He may even advocate reducing the suffering of those with the higher capacity to suffer first (humans before non-humans?).
If that's the case then there rises a rather interesting problem within Singer's Animal Liberation. Though non-human animals have a moral right, it is a reduced moral right when compared with humans. Therefore, though aid to non-human animals could be considered ethical, It is immoral to act on them until all human suffering has been resolved.
PETA, and other organizations built off of the Animal Liberation philosophy, may have solved that road block by considering humans and non-human animals wholly equivalent. Though that leads to another slew of ethical considerations. Like protesting Obama swatting a fly, or protesting experiments on cockroaches.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/peta-says-no-more-flykilling-sends-obama-a-humane-fly-catcher/
http://wkzo.com/news/articles/2013/nov/01/peta-opposes-remote-control-cockroaches-designed-by-michigan-company/
The points that you were making about "nowhere do I state that the capacity of animals to enjoy life is equal to that of humans." is extremely profound. I adhere to that principle as i would never support animal testing; however, I also think that no person should suffer and starve because it would mean taking the life of an animal. I look at this from a perspective of the natural order of things. For instance, if I don't eat that animal, then someone or something else will and in the end it will only make me worse off because now i don't have the sustenance I would have had.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your point that,"though aid to non-human animals could be considered ethical, it is immoral to act on them until all human suffering has been resolved." Although I have great respect for animals, if animal suffering was truly the most sound way of alleviating human suffering I would take no issue with it. I don't, however, believe that the suffering of animals is always to our gain. In the case of mass production of animal products and factory farming, although animal products are made cheaper its at the cost of our own health. My view is animal suffering can only be justified as long as it is for the greater good of humanity.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing. I like your ideas. What you stated in your third paragraph is true. But wouldn't it be nice if we could just solve both problems with one solution? Maybe one day.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%. and I agree with caleb lund about having one solution to both of the problems
ReplyDelete