As a reflection on the pieces by Singer, Animal Liberation and Famine, Affluence, and Morality both pieces have the same underlying message, minimal suffering. Animal Liberation highlights freeing animals from undue pain and Singer goes on to say that factory farms and animal experimentation cause animals undue pain therefore they are wrong. Singer also suggests to stop animal experimentation and factory farms in order to stop these pracatices.
In a perfect world it would be very easy to stop animal experimentation and factory farms but it is not always the most effective or most realistic route. Just because these practices would be halted does not mean that all animals are free from undue pain somewhere else in the world. In the case of factory farms, they control the majority of our food supply. I definitely agree with Singer that all animals should be free from pain and suffering but believe I also that it is our fault that they have pain and have to suffer at the expense of the newest cosmetic product, food supply etc.
I think that having better guidelines, rules and more consequences for companies that test on animals and factory farms would be the better route to take. If factory farms had guidelines and rules as to the minimum amount of land that is required for x amount of animals, requirements on the size of pens and better living conditions then I think animal suffering would be minimized. As for animal testing is concerned I definitely think that using an animal to test out a new type of mascara is wrong; why don't we test on the sex offender down the street that watches your kids walk home every day instead? Oh yeah, because he/she is a human and thats wrong. Well I'm sorry but causing an animal to suffer is just as wrong.
I was also left wondering how Singer would feel about using animals for clothing, such as wool, cashmere, mink etc. Or how mink is used for false eyelashes or the ivory "trade" in general. These animals suffer just as much, practically being skinned and ripped apart alive and are only killed for their fur or their horns; the rest of their bodies get tossed into the trash or left to rot.
As a disclaimer, I am by no means a vegetarian or vegan. But as an aware, educated human being I try to make a conscience effort to not support companies that test on animals, try to buy "free range, organic" if I can and I will never, ever buy a cashmere, wool or any type of clothing or cosmetic product that uses animal fur.
In Famine, Affluence and Morality Singer as the same perspective on human suffering as he does on animal suffering. I, too, think suffering and poverty should be prevented as much as possible and I think that countries that have the means to help poverty stricken countries definitely do not help out as much as they could. I agree with Singer in the sense that not everyone can claim to be oblivious to what is going on in the world and that our priorities are not in line. For example, we should not build another rail system when millions of people and children go without food, water or shelter day in and day out. However, I think that it is difficult to delegate and guarantee that help goes to the actual cause and that we should be helping the system that caused poverty in these countries. In my opinion if a country has that many suffering and poverty stricken people it is not the people's fault, but it is the system that lead to these horrible circumstances and that is what needs to be fixed first. If we do not fix the problem at the top then the problem at the bottom is only going to get worse.
I agree with your assertion that factory farm regulation would be the most effective way of combating the exploitation of animals. If we can't completely eradicate factory farming because of our economic realities we can at least propose and enforce appropriate regulations to at least alleviate the cruelty. To your point we all play a role in the issue with our purchases. We have the freedom to choose free range animal products. Usually we will not choose these options because of the added cost, but we all must accept that this is the true cost of the meat and adapt our consumption habits accordingly. The products from the factory farms have an artificially low cost that we are paying for in our health and the health of the animals.
ReplyDeleteI like how you suggested policy making as a means to end animal suffering. In a capitalist society, it seems there is hardly any morals. Companies often don't change their practices unless they are forced to. Regulations are the way to go. I also think their should be a cultural push to return to traditional farms instead of factory farming. This reduces animal cruelty. Perhaps there could be subsidies for these kinds of farms so the price of meat doesn't inconvenience the average family. Then again, I don't think reducing meat consumption is necessarily a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing. I enjoyed the artwork to go with your defense. It is sad that so much of this goes on in modern society. Its time more people speak up and voice their outrage! Great start!
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated your post. Also, the fact that you suggested ways to fix the suffering of animals on industrial farms, not by abolishing them completely, but by creating stricter policies and guidelines for the farms. The scary thing about this is that, for the most part, the people who impart the policies, probably don't care about the animals that they harm, they only care about the money that is raked in from cranking out more and more animal products at faster and faster rates...After all, most chairs of the USDA are held by politicians that have alterior motives than the protection of animals. Do you think that it would be a good start to elect chairs people for these agencies that are not also involved with the government and the economy? Here's an interesting page on animal stress that I found on the USDA website, it's interesting that they perform tests like these but the industrial meat/ animal production operations are more cruel than they have ever been...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jan02/animal0102.htm
You have a well thought out post! The pictures that you used are awful to see, but direct in their message. I believe there are responsible ways to raise animals in your care. I know a couple families who raise alpaca, and the animals are kept in open arena type enclosures. They get so hairy, they do cut off their hair for different uses, and it then, grows back. They consider these animals more of pets, than anything, but the idea for them is regenerating income with the sale of the hair. I did not feel like the animals were in any way suffering, perhaps anxious when it was their turn for a haircut or perhaps excited to get rid of the extra weight?
ReplyDeleteAs Jessica said, the pictures are get-wrenching. As important as they are to see, you said something which is even more important. The system that we have created and the rich "ugly" people that want to wear the furs are the ones that keep this cycle in gear. The serious question is, even if we could prevent everyone from buying products that support this inhumane treatment of animals... would that one ugly percentage of people not feed enough money to keep it in existence at least on some scale?
ReplyDelete