Speciesism The Dilemma of Human Superiority

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

email

WORDS Paul Marcus Reiter

There is a word that demands wider usage: Speciesism. Australian philosopher Peter Singer emphasises that ‘Speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.’ Most of us in our ‘enlightened’, post-modern state recoil at anything remotely resembling sexist or racist language or conduct. So what will it take for us to equally recoil at anything remotely speciesist? What will it take to make that bold, imaginative leap?

The evidence of the widespread environmental degradation, decreasing animal population and general animal welfare is unquestionable. Not only has the calamity of animal abuse been highlighted through various organisations, it has also been documented in scientific reports, papers and films. In particular, Earthlings, a powerful 2005 documentary, elegantly, poignantly and emotionally presents footage of the five ways in which human beings exploit animals: fashion, food, entertainment, pets and medical research. Unabashed in its honesty, and using equal parts philosophy and poetry as well as raw facts, the documentary forces the viewer to contemplate their moral stance and provides a piercing window into sections of our society rarely seen by most. A large portion of the footage concerns places that are generally inaccessible to the general public and therefore ‘invisible’, and largely unconsidered – the slaughterhouses, the puppy mills, the testing labs. Becoming aware of these places and comprehending the brutal, monstrous entire nature of their operation is paramount in helping to create a moral catharsis.

Making the connection

Several protestors dressed as fluffy animals demonstrate against war. The treatment of enemy combatants and civilians in a war mirrors in many staggering ways the worldwide treatment of most animals. Photo: LGagnon/flickr

Ethical considerations, environmental degradation and individual health are all intimately linked, and the effects are compounding. Hopefully, connecting these issues will allow a more ethical approach to life itself. Writer and naturalist Henry Beston in his 1928 book The Outermost House (quoted at the beginning of Earthlings), posits rightly that, ‘We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals.’ We lack a language that is richer and more magical, we lack a vibrantly poetic and transcendent way of culturally acknowledging the kinship we share with these other creatures, of connecting our story here on this Earth with theirs. Beston’s observations of animals and nature meant he was considered to be one of the fathers of the modern day environmental movement.

Journalist Chris Hedges in his article ‘All Forms of Life Are Sacred’  lays down the claim that, ‘There is a direct link between our industrial slaughterhouses for animals and our industrial weapons used on the battlefields in the Middle East.’ A war correspondent for 20 years, and a recently turned vegan, he lucidly paints a picture of our industrial society as a rapacious death-machine, which is as violently insensitive towards those deemed our enemies, our poor, our homeless and our disenfranchised as it is to all non-human animals. The ‘mechanisation of murder’ is played out both on distant battlefields against enemy combatants (and civilians) just as it is in our industrial farms and slaughterhouses. In both cases, sanitised censorship meticulously masks the stark reality of the situation, and in so doing citizens accept it as normal. Are we going to accept this normality?

Industrial capitalism inherently needs to simplify its mode of operation in order to function linearly and smoothly. That is to say, it operates at its most ‘efficient’ when it is detached from the organic, complex nature of the world, and thus of life. It is therefore inherently anti-life, and it callously and ‘rationally’ erodes anything that one may call the sacred dynamism of the natural world. It needs to conceptually convert living, feeling beings into objects, so that it may deal with them accordingly. Ethical considerations stand in the way of this. So do compassion and love.

Hedges also mentions the highly controversial US animal rights activist Gary Francione, whose position on animal welfare is absolute and more pronounced than even the major animal welfare groups. He speaks directly to the heart of the issue instead of remaining within the parameters of the general animal welfare debate and asks should animals be used at all? The evidence and philosophy he draws from is profound – and profoundly disconcerting.

Claims such as ‘There is every bit as much suffering and death in a glass of milk, ice cream cone, or an egg as there is in a steak,’ may seem hyperbole, yet the evidence is all there. Francione explains, ‘Where we have gone wrong is our belief that because animals are cognitively different from us they have lesser moral value. They are not as cognitively sophisticated as we are – they don’t write symphonies or do calculus – so we can eat, wear and use them, as long as we do so “humanely”. Most animal rights activists argue that using them is not the problem; the problem is how we treat them. My view is that using them is the problem.’

Farming & greenhouse gases

There are direct links between livestock farming and man-induced climate change. Indeed, factory style agriculture is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The 2007 documentary Meat the Truth summarises the case well and is narrated by Marianne Thieme, a member of the Dutch Party for the Animals, the first political party of its kind anywhere in the world. The data in the film was drawn from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO), the World Watch Institute and the Institute for Environmental Studies of the Free University of Amsterdam, among others, and addresses the greenhouse issue (even Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth neglected this connection). The feature film Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (2014) further enunciates the case. Bringing this urgent topic to the forefront of political debate and policy is vital. For as Peter Singer so succinctly and tongue-in-cheek warns us, ‘We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet – for the sake of hamburgers.’

Innumerable organisations around the world are doing unbelievable work in serving to raise awareness of the plight of specific species (like the well-known PETA and WWF). However, the promotion of critical understanding surrounding the background, structural causes of animal mistreatment is very often lacking. They serve energetically to arouse our compassion for these animals but as Francione emphasises, ‘There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that animal welfare reforms will lead to the end of animal use or significantly reduced animal use. We have had animal welfare standards and laws for more than 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals in more horrible ways than at any time in human history.’ It’s a valid assertion. These animals do not require our fleeting sympathy; they require us to stop commercialising, commodifying, exploiting, torturing and cannibalising them. All of them. They require us to cease being speciesist. They require us to be ethical.

More ethics, less speciesism

Ethics is not an abstract phenomenon, it is lived. It can inform and direct one in and through their actions and thoughts, in their choices and considerations. Ethics is not a rigid prescription on how to live or what to think, but a fluid position from which one is constantly feeding back from the world and society. John Ralston Saul in his book On Equilibrium puts it simply: ‘Ethics is like a muscle which must be exercised daily in order to be used in a normal manner.’ Ethics is thus not something that can or need be left to philosophers or academics, or for discussion in any one school course for instance, but engaged in daily by each individual.

The vast majority of animals, particularly those most consumed by humans such as cows, are treated as mere objects. Reframing our relationship to them would not require that much effort on our behalf. Photo: Marji Beach/flickr

Yet, also, ‘ethics is a public matter’, says Saul. It therefore relates not merely to individual thoughts and actions, but to social, collective initiatives. This requires dialogue and an acute awareness of what society is engaged in, what its preferences and tastes are, and what its values are. To begin to ponder ethically and ask questions, and then ‘not to go on, is to admit personal failure as an ethical being.’ To do this as a society is to admit collective failure as an ethical society.

Philosopher Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem wrote of the ‘banality of evil’, that is, that the majority of ‘evil’ acts committed across history were not done so by ‘evil’ people, but rather by ‘ordinary’, otherwise moral people simply following orders, simply going through the motions dictated by whatever structure they were in. Complicit as we are all now in the greatest crime – the collective crime against the animal world – perpetuated on Earth since life’s emergence more than four billion years ago, we are part of a great and insidious evil.

The mainstream media, largely, is as guilty in their unwillingness to critically investigate and report the horrendous atrocities committed every second around the planet upon our fellow creatures. If these acts do not constitute ‘news’, then perhaps the definition thereof needs to be readdressed. Perhaps the media needs to be held more accountable. They are as committed to a maintaining of the status-quo as is big business, and thereby they reveal a stark amorality, that pervades the rest of society. Regardless, the responsibility largely falls onto the individual. Electing not to confront these uncomfortable truths is both morally schizophrenic and intellectually disingenuous.

We can no longer allow any discourse centring on animal welfare to focus simply on the ‘conservation’ of a handful of large creatures or on pet care, but to broaden this to include consideration of all of life, in all its forms. The Non-Human Rights Project is the first of it’s kind to actively file law suits in the States, requiring the legal status of some animals to change from ‘objects’ to ‘persons’. They petition for certain animals to have the right not to be imprisoned. ‘We are asking the courts to recognise, for the first time, that these cognitively sophisticated, autonomous beings are legal persons who have the basic right to not be held in captivity.’ If we truly value ourselves and our societies, then we need to recognise humans are also animals and all sentient beings deserve respect. For as Ghandi poignantly announced, ‘The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.’

Conservation for all

A movement toward veganism is slowly building around the world. What kind of traction this can ultimately build is uncertain, particularly as reactions against this are at times vitriolic. Yet if anything the principles behind it deserve our attention. Websites like GoVeg.com and even apps such as Happy Cow – which locates vegan restaurants within a certain vicinity – help provide viable, accessible alternatives to a meat-laden diet. Meat Free Mondays is also a growing cause to encourage at least one day without meat. It is important to bear in mind, as Francione lucidly states, ‘Veganism is not about giving up anything or losing anything, it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable.’

It is time to radically infuse general discourse in society and indeed our very lives with a pro-ethical and life engaging language. It will take watching documentaries such as Earthlings, listening to impassioned animal rights organisations, naming and shaming companies involved in animal abuse, reading works from activists such as Gary Francione and more. It will take asking hard questions and tough choices made individually, but also institutionally and culturally. But most importantly, it will require imbibing our daily language with greater respect, awe and wonder in our consideration of the beauty, splendour and complexity of life on this planet. With it can revolutionary leaps forward occur.

There is a beautiful term here in South Africa: Ubuntu. It translates roughly as ‘I am because you are’. It is a word imbued with recognition of the inherent, communal nature of human existence. It alludes to the shared quality of life. Perhaps it is time to extend the purview of the inclusivity of this term beyond its human dimensions to all our fellow earthlings. For indeed, we are because they are. In the words of Joaquin Phoenix, narrator for Earthlings, ‘It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal. Make the connection.’

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

email