"facts"

According to Peter Singer's sources, “perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical interventions…” (91). So with this decline in mortality, only 3.5 can be attributed to medical interventions, which means that animal experimentation is an even smaller portion of that number. There are other ways to solve diseases and test chemicals; animals need not suffer any longer. 

Then in The Animal Rights Debate, Carl Cohen quotes a statement by the Council of Scientific Affairs. According to the Council, they think: "Animals have proved to be invaluable in the pursuit of knowledge in the life sciences, and the knowledge gained often benefits both animals and humans . . . Many of today's most vexing health problems will be solved by research on animals. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome [AIDS], Alzheimer's disease, coronary heart disease, and cancer represent but a few of the nation's most troubling health problems" (123). 

It's difficult to determine which is more accurate. Both of them are trying to get the reader to join their side of the argument, which I think would entail them to use whatever means possible. Many of Singer's examples of animal cruelty are outdated and who is to say that these aren't isolated cases of extreme animal mistreatment being used for persuasion? Cohen quotes numerous scientists who have their own interests in the continuation of animal research. I guess I will have to see how Tom Regan responds to Carl Cohen to see where my ever changing opinions go next!

Rights vs. Obligations vs. Liberation

As this class continues to move forward and we read more and more differing perspectives, I'm getting a bit torn. On one hand there is Peter Singer who wants animals to be liberated; to end all animal suffering and death. He also believes that animals have the right to not suffer. Then we read Pollan's chapter about hunting, which essentially said that hunting is part of who we are, it's in our genes. He also recognizes the community that food creates during holidays or special events. For example, the baseball game hot-dogs, the thanksgiving turkey or the Christmas ham. Bernstein's article threw another wrench into the melting pot of viewpoints. He is completely against hunting and proved his points well. He gave numerous examples of how hunting negatively affected wildlife and ecosystems. He completely convinced me that hunting isn't necessary; the biological systems can and will take care of themselves. This week we read The Animal Rights Debate by Tom Regan and Carl Cohen. Cohen argues that animals don't have rights but we, as moral agents, have obligations to animals. Cora Diamond says that both animals and humans are "travelers between life and death", one in the same.

So what I'm trying to figure out is which viewpoints I agree with most ... How we treat animals is very important to me as a pet owner and as a knowledgeable consumer. I want to have a strong argument and a strong understanding of why I think something is right or wrong. It's difficult to find a right or correct answer that I can faithfully stand behind. I'm sure that as I learn more, I'll slowly develop my own combination of opinions and beliefs. Time will tell...

Cora Diamond Reading

One of the readings this week was Cora Diamond's essay: "Eating Meat and Eating People". It was not a quick read by any means but it was worth it to read the whole thing with all the interesting points she made. She is vegetarian herself and she doesn't find Peter Singer's arguments/reasoning compelling for people to become vegetarians.

Her main idea is that we shouldn't eat meat on the grounds that we wouldn't eat a person. I know, it sounds strange and ridiculous. Numerous times throughout the essay, she points out that we use language to separate ourselves from animals, when the reality is that we too are animals. She says it best when she says: "In the case of the difference between animals and people, it is clear that we form the idea of this difference, create the concept of the difference, knowing perfectly well the overwhelmingly obvious similarities" (98). What it comes down to for Cora Diamond is that: "what is appropriate treatment for members of our species would be appropriate to members of any whose capacities gave them similar interests. We are all equally animals..." (102).

"... animals as our fellows in mortality, in life on this earth" (102).

This reading has given me a lot to think about and a completely different perspective on vegetarianism. 

Thinking about our Class Discussion from 2-5

Cows grazing freely at a family farm right behind my home in Vermont

I don't think vegetarianism is the solve-all-problems answer we think it is. While vegetarianism does directly hit the factory farms, it also hits the family farms that raise their animals in a more humane way than factory farms. We're not just hurting the bad guys, but the good guys too.

I consider family farmers to be the good guys because they generally raise animals that can entertain their natural instincts, they don't destroy the land and the food is then produced locally. I think that in a sense, family farms are like little self contained ecosystems. Cows create fertilizer for crops, chickens provide eggs, cows provide milk, the farmers provide food, water and shelter for the animals, and when crops are rotated, the soil is replenished. It's a pretty darn amazing system in my mind. The land is not being destroyed but revitalized, which sustains life, our lives and the animals.

And one author from a reading noted than even vegans are still (indirectly) killing animals. When farmers gather the crops with their large machines, they are accidentally killing field mice and other small mammals. It's just something to think about... No solution is ever perfect. But ultimately vegetarianism is an awesome choice for those not wanting to support factory farms. Just make sure to realize the other options too!

Singer vs. Pollan

This week we had to read excerpts from The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan and Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Pollan and Singer have different takes on becoming a vegetarian. I was going to outline both their arguments but ultimately they come to a similar conclusion. Singer argues that the best way to combat factory farming is to become either vegetarian or vegan; to directly hit factory farms where it hurts the most: in meat aisle. Pollan on the other hand comes to the conclusion that "what's wrong with eating animals is the practice, not the principle". He thinks those who truly care about animals (and want to continue to eat meat) should work to ensure that the animals they eat are raised without suffering and killed swiftly/painlessly. Pollan concludes that we need better animal welfare, not animal rights.

Which made me wonder what is the difference between welfare and rights? Are they one in the same?
Welfare: 1. The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group. 2. Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.
Rights: That which is morally correct, just or honorable. 

Based on these definitions, I think that Pollan and Singer are fighting for the same thing but offering different solutions to the problem. They both recognize that animals deserve a certain quality of life before death; Singer says the best solution is to become a vegetarian or vegan, while Pollan suggests transparency of the farming industry (specifically of the kill floor) because if everyone was to see how the animals they eat are killed, our factory farming techniques would soon cease to exist.

I think at the end of the day both are correct. For some, not eating meat isn't an option but supporting family farms that raise and slaughter animals humanely is an option. People who love animals and love eating meat can support that option. As a college student myself, being a vegetarian is much easier. I can't afford to pay extra money on humanely raised meat, but I'm still is some small way affecting the factory farming business. What it comes down to is personal preference. As long as you're taking some action against factory farming, its a step in the right direction for us and the animals.