VEGANGELICA

Hi, Toretorden,

That is a mitey nice picture of a plump and a shriveled, solute-concentrated springtail! (I know they aren't mites, but I thought I'd try to throw in the "mitey" pun anyway).

Thanks for sharing what the situation is like for livestock animals in Norway and also discussing where our views coincide and where they do not. I enjoy civil discussions about contentious topics like religion, vegetarianism, ethics, politics, etc., so thank you for engaging in one with me! I see that we are similar in that we think about this issue of how people choose to treat animals.

I think you are very right that Europe is much more concerned with the ethical treatment of non-human animals than in the U.S. Europe's animal welfare laws are much more progressive. I am glad for that, and for the care given to cattle and pigs in Norway.

The question I then would ask, though, is this: when one acknowledges that these animals have feelings including pleasure (enjoying mattresses, scrubbing, etc.), what makes it ethical or not ethical to end their pleasure (through slaughter)? There is no right or wrong answer, just different answers, as with any ethics question.

Tore, I agree with you completely that animals killing animals is natural, and so humans killing animals is natural. I also agree with you that humankind has evolved with the capacity to kill and eat other animals.

However, I see several difficulties with basing what we feel is ethical behavior on what occurs in nature:

(1) Many natural behaviors are ones that most people would not feel are ethical (would not want people to emulate).

If we are to look to nature as a guide for what we feel is ethical behavior, and therefore conclude that it is ethical for humans to kill other animals, then shouldn't we also be emulating the male lion's actions when he takes over a pride after killing or driving off the previous lead male? The new male lion typically kills and eats the children of the predecessor, and then impregnates all the females. If we aren't going to emulate the lion in its child-killing behavior, then why should we emulate it in its antelope-killing behavior?

This is an example of why people may not want to use nature as a guide for what they wish to consider as ethical, unless we wish to condone and support murder, infanticide, rape, male domination over female, etc. etc.

(2) Humans generally develop a greater capacity for complex moral reasoning than other animals, as best we can tell, and so it is fair to hold humans to a different standard.

For example, when a lion kills an antelope, I agree with you that the lion is not acting immorally because as far as I know the lion is not capable of thinking about its food, which it must eat to survive, in ethical terms. This is not to say lions don't feel affection, love, devotion, kindness, etc. (for other lions, for example), but they probably do not have these feelings for their prey. Humans, meanwhile, naturally can have feelings for other animals, and have the capacity to care about them, and so if a human were to go out and kill an antelope I would not judge that using the same ethical ruler I use when observing the lion's behavior.

Similarly, with human children, we do not expect them to have learned or developed the moral capacities of older adults. This is reflected in the legal repercussions that result when children vs. adults break a law: the punishment is usually lighter for a child. It is not as unethical when a child hits me on the leg as it is when a full adult, whom we expect to have developed the ability for speech and self-control, punches me. So, if a dog goes out and kills a cat, I will be less upset with the dog than if a teenage son goes out and kills a cat, because the latter behavior suggests a scary lack of compassion for another being...(unless the animal is a pig..then most people condone it...but why the difference?). I will feel equally sad for the cat, in both scenarios.

(3) A third problem I see with using nature as a guide for ethics: When something occurs in nature (such as predation), this does not mean it is "good" or "bad"...it could be both.

For example, whenever my child and I watch a nature show and we see a lion killing an antelope, I explain the situation (the lion needs to eat other animals in order to survive), and I say, "When the lion kills the antelope, this is good for the lion and bad for the antelope." Whether something is ethical usually depends on whose viewpoint one is taking :-).

Tore, I feel you make the very valid point...which is one of the strongest arguments in support of people eating animals products...that for many people in the world where the land is not suitable for agriculture, given that people live there, then their only current option may be to eat animal products they get from grazing animals.

Like you note, though, in Norway presumably much food can be imported (vegetables, fruits), and so one *could* import more beans/grains if people wished to be vegan. I am thinking more of the developing countries where due to poverty people can afford to buy very little and may depend on cattle for their survival. That situation is much more similar to the lion and the antelope.

It is true that I would feel more likely to drink a domesticated cow's milk or eat eggs if I were assured the animals were happy, able to express their natural desires, form family and friendships, etc....plus be allowed to live out their lives in full. I was an ovo-lacto vegetarian for such a long time because I didn't realize that people kill all male chicks of egg-laying breeds, or kill the male calves of dairy cows, etc.

I've enjoyed discussing with you the age-old topic of humanity's relationship with, and responsiblity for, other animals!

--Erica